Bevo

, I get a warning that this should use "subclass of" not "instance of", but wouldn't an individual animal would be an instance" of a breed, rather than a subclass? - Jmabel (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I could not connect a new en:article to WD

Once again. I created a page on enwiki, which has (the topic has) a QID. Neither on enwiki, nor on Wikidata, I could find a tool/link/help to make the obvious connection (wd-enwiki link). -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The trick is to add the en.wiki article as a sitelink - [2]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong merges and links

This and that bot-mergers have caused a lot of mess in the merged item, and a lot of links are now pointing to the wrong person. Somebody should clean this up. Steak (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The merger seems to reverted, but many links are still wrong, see e.g. this bot change. Steak (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Although worth noting that Pigsonthewing-bot was not responsible for that edit, Steak. I think if you do not identify the responsible user/bot in a posting like this, you diminish the chances of the bot being reined in by its owner. If you confuse an issue over here with an unrelated issue over there, then doubly so. And, of course, contacting the bot owner on their talk page first spares us all the drama, presuming that the bot owner responds to their talk-page poke. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll revert them, thanks for bringing it up (and I second what Tagishsimon said). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"20. century" seems to be the right format for an unknown date in the 20th century, so there may be a problem with code that's creating the table. Ghouston (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that may be wrong, it probably should be "19. century" for a date that starts with "19". Ghouston (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Playing with it a bit, it seems that it displays "20. century" if the underlying date is 1901-2000, with century precision, so my first guess is more likely. Ghouston (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused by it. Help:Dates says: Use "1800" with precision 7 to specify years 1800-1899, and it displays as "18.century", but does that mean that only years ending in "00" are valid for century precision? Ghouston (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Load the year YYYY in the preview , so some load made by myself, and by other users with date for example 1953 ("+ 1953-MM-DDT00: 00: 00Z / 07"): in the preview is correct ( 20. century) but in the preview of the search in 1953.

I will do 1 load Q19948171 with "+ 1801-00-00T00: 00: 00Z / 07" and "+ 1901-00-00T00: 00: 00Z / 07" and I will check.

(preview: Andrew McCulloch Person (1801–1901) ♂; 1864-1945)

Also to do the calculations of the Q21510854 in P570 use the year YYYY of ("+ YYYY-00-00T00: 00: 00Z / 07") in the manual loads and loads "+ 2000-00-00T00: 00: 00Z / 07 "It's the year 2000.

I think that frwiki considers 2000 the 21st century (error) so he shows these people as "21. century".

For births, could you use 1901 with precision 7 for 20th century? Avoids many problems. I'm not entirely sure if century precision is of much use for people born in that century, unless you actually attempted to find more information elsewhere. Floruit with a year would be better. --- Jura 08:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two ways to interpret "21. century". Perhaps it's supposed to mean "21st century", so it would mean 2000-2099 or 2001-2100 (ok, there are 3 ways). Alternatively, it may mean "2100 with century precision" so 2100-2199. Help:Dates says it's the latter. Ghouston (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Surely 1901 with "century precision" means "some time between 1801 and 2001"? There is nothing to say the precision is in one direction only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The data model seems not to be a ± uncertainty, but based on truncation. E.g., any value 1950-1959 with precision "decade" will be displayed as "1950s". Likewise, you'd expect any value 1900-1999, with century precision, to be displayed the same way, perhaps as "19XX" or something, but that doesn't happen, since 1900 is displayed as "19 .century" and the other values as "20 .century." Ghouston (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The general specification for this is mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/DataModel. Mere mortals are not allowed to see how Wikidata stores information internally, but there are two alternative formats of importing or exporting data, which are specified at mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/DataModel/JSON and mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/Indexing/RDF Dump Format. All three agree that the precision value tells you what to ignore in the time stamp, and that the time stamp is inspired by (but not fully compatible with) ISO 8601. If you look at the edit summary for the example that started this thread, in March when the date of birth was added, you see the time stamp was +2000-00-00T00:00:00Z. The precision of 7 tells us to ignore all but the century digits, like this: +2000-00-00T00:00:00Z. So the statement tells us the person was born between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2099.

The user interface does not interpret these values correctly on input, nor on output. "20.century" is utter nonsense. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Jc3s5h:. If that's the data model, then the formatting is completely broken. Note only for the confusing "20.century", which people naturally guess means "20th century", but because 1950 with century precision is also formatted as "20.century". Ghouston (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Referencing coordinates to Wikimapia

If I use WikiMapia (Q187491) to obtain coordinates for some place, and enter it into Wikidata, does Wikidata policy (1) allow me to reference the coordinates to Wikimapia.org and (2) require me to reference the coordinates to Wikimapia.org? Abductive (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You can reference coordinates to Wikimapia, and I would say this is definitely better than no reference at all. Pls be aware that mass (for example, bot-assisted) downloading coordinates from Wikimapia and, in fact, from many other places is likely not allowed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that I have the technical ability to do so, but Wikimapia supposedly is CC BY-SA. Is that relevant? Abductive (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could 'splain that to a newbie? Abductive (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Data in Wikidata are licenced under CC-0 (everybody can use on any condition). Since the requirements of CC-BY-SA are stronger, data can not be mass-copied from Wikipapia to Wikidata, this would be a violation of the license.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference, then, between using Wikimapia to find the coordinates for an item, and using Wikimapia to find the coordinates for lots of items. Abductive (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If you take info for an item, it does not matter what the source is as soon as the source is reliable. The source can even be copyrighted. A single fact is not copyrighted. However, a collection of the facts can be, and this depends on a number of circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What if a data collection such as Wikimapia's was used to detect errors in another database, such as Wikidata's, and only correct those errors? Or simply flag those errors? Abductive (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the question, but I guess it does not matter - if data are imported from Wikidata to Wikimapia they become CC-BY-SA and can not be imported back to Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, is the distinction that Q1238720 indicates a single physically-bound object, whereas Q19816504 represents a logical concept, of a number of issues of a periodical taken together? Yet this also has its limitations, because there are many multi works that may be split into physically-bound object designated eg "Volume 3 part 2". Yet I think we would still use volume (Q1238720) for these.

Alternatively, as suggested by the German label "Jahrgang" rather than "Band", is Q19816504 specifically (and only) to be used to represent an annual run of a periodical -- often not a volume, because a journal may accumulate two or more volumes in a year.

This last interpretation makes the most sense to me, in which case the English label should probably be changed.

Looking at the statements on the items, Q1238720 includes the statement has part (P527)issue (Q28869365) - another apparent indication that it is intended to be used for periodicals; and both claim to be equivalent class (P1709)http://schema.org/PublicationVolume - probably it is Q1238720 that should have this link, since Schema.org says of its concept only that it "may represent a time span, such as a year", not that it must do so. (Though it would useful to confirm with a native German speaker how strictly "Jahrgang" is limited to exactly a year-long run.)

Most importantly is how they have been used. But here in particular there seems to be no great consistency, whether tinyurl.com/y7luwqd2 one limits to items that have a chain of statements making them part of a subclass of periodical literature (Q1002697) (only 6 items), or tinyurl.com/ybeux8t7 not.

At the very least clarification, and clean-up, are needed. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Having slept on it overnight, I have now made the following changes (diff1, diff2) which I hope will clarify the situation and make the relationship between two items more transparent:

How to link proofs to theorems?

We already have items that represent proofs, like Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for specific exponents (Q3044466). As far as I know, there aren't properties that can link a theorem with its proofs. Maybe we should have a "proof" (from the theorem to the proof) and "proof of" (from the proof to the theorem). Maybe only "proof of".

It could be useful to have also an "assumptions" and a "statement" property - in addition to defining formula (P2534) - in order to separate the assuptions from the conclusion. Maybe also something like a "natural language statement" where we can write the definition of a concept or the statement of a theorem in natural language.--Malore (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is similar to other issues that I've reported, but it appears something different is going on this time.

Commons:Category:Harmonium players just had a Wikidata Infobox added. It ended up with an infobox for "reed organ". Obviously, while a harmonium is a type of reed organ, a harmonium player is not a reed organ. Can anyone work out what is going on here? - Jmabel (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge 2x von Wolff

The Pirates of Penzance

Do I understand correctly that no recording of The Pirates of Penzance has a Wikidata item of its own? (It's hard to be sure of a negative, as against some sort of problem with search.) - Jmabel (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the several places I looked that had me thinking so. Further investigation suggests a real dearth of items for classical and (in this case) light classical recordings. If I understand correctly, not a single recording by Arturo Toscanini has an item of its own. - Jmabel (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Johnny Appleseed

"He never married. He thought he would be rewarded in heaven for not doing so.[19]"

However, the same source says (pg. 73 book, pg. 86 online): "Conclusion: While little is known about Johnny’s reasons for remaining single, we can rule out the idea that he was waiting for a “reward” of two wives in heaven—an unfortunate rumor that was started by a novel written in 1858.34 Johnny certainly believed that there was marriage in heaven, and must have looked forward to it, but he was not a polygamist; he was a Swedenborgian who knew that true love with one partner can be eternal. He also knew that if he didn’t marry on earth, he would find his soulmate in heaven. "

I have changed the Wikipedia article accordingly. But this is Wikidata, which is not where the error appeared. In the future, make your requests on Talk pages of the Wikipedia articles that you have found a problem with. Abductive (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

How should I mark P570 if it's not an exact date?

Ilona Csorba Ilona Csorba (Q47507186) died in May but we don't know the exact date. On the Hungarian article, we mark this as before 25th of May, because the first article was published on that day. How should I mark this on her Wikidata-item? Bencemac (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Version 1 doesn't work either.
What can I do? For labels it's the same, but with adding an empty string there is a workaround.) Thanks in advance for any advice! --Marsupium (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marsupium: put the '-' at the front of the line in the Version 1 format (i.e. before the Q, not before the A). The new csv format only allows the '-' on statement properties, not on other columns. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought my source for that info was Help:QuickStatements itself but I can't find what I thought I read there. I was trying to remove a qualifier and the line I read suggested removal only worked for entire statements... is that documented somewhere else perhaps? Now I'm confused... ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Marsupium (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

When a list does not have a subject

Quite often, items are indicated as a list and associated articles include a list but there is no associated item for what the list is about. What I propose is to either change it from a list to the subject of a list or change the label so that it is obvious that the article is a list (in practice add "List of" to an existing label now using the label for the subjectmatter..

@GerardM: It is increasingly irksome when articles about a subject and articles that are simply lists of that subject get conflated, as I've noticed at least when dealing with various India-related topics. If a prior item about a subject has been merged with a list item (as may be determined by looking at the latter's history), then I'd suggest undoing the creation of a redirect on the old subject item and then filling that in as appropriate. The following query may help to determine such conflations, but may not catch all of them:

@Ghouston: In the specific case you bring up, it may be better to recast the enwiki page title as "List of ministries of the Netherlands" and move that sitelink to the list item, keeping the two items separate, as there is little of substance about Dutch ministries (history? overview? relations with the rest of the Dutch government? controversies? etc.) in the enwiki article besides the list. There should always be room made for articles about a subject item that go into more detail than whatever prologue a list article may have about the subject it lists. Mahir256 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia are beside the point. The question is what do we do at Wikidata. Either we accept list articles for the subject and rename them as such or we accept them as a list and create items for the subject. The consequence is that we either link from items to the list article or we create links to the newly created item. Never mind what happens elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that list items on Wikidata are only useful when some other site has both an article and a list article, and their only use is for holding sitelinks. In other cases, all the sitelinks could go on a single Wikidata item, even if some had "list" in their titles. Also, the list item only needs to hold sitelinks for sites that do have a 2nd article, all the others could go on the main item. Ghouston (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

#defaultView:Map - sequence of fields in info popups

Does anybody know how to fix the sequence of result variables in the map popup infos? In this query about birth places of persons, I want it to be: image, itemlink/label, place, externallink, as defined in the select clause of the query. But apparently, this is ignored, and the displayed sequence is place, externallink, image, itemlink/label. Jneubert (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Cinderella (Q5120428) (the 1948 Frederick Ashton ballet) and see if I did this right? In particular, am I right in how I handled the list of dancers in the original production, or are there some further qualifiers I should be using, or what? Should I be handling the roles and the specific dancers as two more separated things? Somehow specifying that they were the dancers in the original production? Etc. I can't find a solid model for this anywhere. This was indicated in Help:Modelling as a sort of paradigm for a ballet, and until I did this it had no indication of dancers or roles at all! - Jmabel (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, as it is still only a script by @Matěj Suchánek. No idea about its quality and whether it is fit to be used as a gadget. Matěj should know, I guess… —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about its reliability (yesterday I got reported a severe bug) and niether am I going to make it a gadget now. Eventually, I'd like to have it merged to Move.css. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For me it's working more reliable then Move for sitelinks. --Infovarius (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #315

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Thanks! that makes a ton of sense, but I didn't know it was available.

For what it's worth: I'm doing an extensive rewrite of Help:Modelling to try to get it so that presumably common situations like this are described somewhere. Presumably, eventually it can be broken into multiple pages. As it stood a few weeks ago, it was pretty useless. - Jmabel (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: (Response edited for clarity.) For that album specifically, I haven't looked at most of the properties (though the dates should ideally be accurate to the day); if the album was only released in those two formats the item structure should be fine. "Has part" with four CDs is somewhat questionable nowadays, since many older albums are now available for streaming or digital download: one Nuggets edition has an entry on Last.fm (Q183718) (although I don't know how last.fm works so I don't know if it's relevant). Jc86035 (1) (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

When things are decently documented in a WikiProject, the main thing we need in Help:Modelling is just a link. - Jmabel (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, because I have some time and @Jc86035 (1): response is really annoying me ... first, this is not some new undiscovered territory. Starting with "I'll assume there is currently no set system for modelling musical releases" reassures us that you have not read, or have not understood, the work done on wikidata and elsewhere. It does not auger well for the rest of your screed. You continue "because everything I've found so far is just the Wikipedia model of sticking everything related into one item". Which is odd, because even a cursory reading of Wikidata:WikiProject Music makes clear the distinction between the work/expression and the manifestation (in FRBR terms); and it is the work / manifestation pattern which is being discussed here. You then proceed into a long repetitive list of what you perhaps imagine are edge-cases. Most can be answered fairly easily whether or not you adopt the FRBR approach, by asking whether the edition/variant/release is notable in wikidata terms, or structurally useful. I agree with you that your Never Gonna Give You Up example is stupid. I note you next veer off on a hobby-horse about notability - which though interesting, relevant and debatable, has nothing at all to do with data modelling. Together, the edge cases and notability stuff look more like flinging mud around because you have nothing meaningful to say on the modelling question. Your second answer is a miniature repeat of the first; a long list of factors on which you state the model might depend, without bothering to make any explanation as to how any of these factors might affect the model - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And the reason I'm annoyed is that we are no wiser at the end of your long screed than we were at the start; we've merely had our time wasted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I'd like to apologise for writing what is apparently a load of nonsense. I was not aware that the FRBR could be applied to musical works; and in the February discussion linked absolutely no one responded so I assumed that much of the data model was incomplete, especially in regards to chart positions, the classification of editions of works, and what qualifies as an edition of a work. I have deleted my comment for now, save for the link to the February discussion which I hope was written more coherently in your view. Jc86035 (1) (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: It's there in the page history if anyone wants to look at it, but since it's apparently a waste of time to read it (I personally don't think it was a useful comment) I don't think it would be necessary to keep it there. I don't know if doing that is against a guideline or policy on this project, and I can't find one that says it is. If you wanted to you could put it back with {{Cot}}/{{Cob}}. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Last time I looked - some years ago - there were, I recall, over 200 editions of Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon'. There have been a good number more, since. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, and I don't think there is a reason to model every edition of everything. But in this case, where we had lumped together two editions, one of which has only 1/4 of the content of the other, clearly that called for recognizing them as two different things. - Jmabel (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I've been doing a lot of worl on modelling textiles, but it's not formally documented anywhere. I can add it to the Fashion wikiproject at some point so it's findable. - PKM (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be very welcome. When you have that together, please link from Help:Modelling. - Jmabel (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Canonical coordinate location

What was the ruling on the source for a canonical coordinate location (GPS coordinates), I did not see the outcome, are we suppose to use the Geonames database? when two are merged we end up with two very close set of numbers. --RAN (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And exactly the same errors (and more) are present in geonames. Some are curated by the Wiki approach within geonames, but others added. The only advantage of geonames over GEOnet - its possible to link to an item in geonames. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Choreographers

We have choreographer (Q2490358), choreographer as a profession, but I don't see a property anywhere to say that someone choreographed a particular work. - Jmabel (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The "Search Wikidata" autocomplete only looks at items, not properties. If you preface the term with "P:" (eg. "P:choreographer") and hit the "containing" link at the bottom, you'll do a search of properties. Autocomplete for properties is available when you add a statement of course. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Why on earth doesn't our search include properties by default? Or have a more obvious way to include them? - Jmabel (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The search results include Main items and Properties. choreographer (P1809) is the 3rd result.[5] However, the autocomplete in the search box only gives Main items. I have no idea why they differ. Ghouston (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is it so often vandalized? May be to protect it indefinitely? --Infovarius (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The linked page on mw.org is linked to from the Mediawiki interface on most wikis from the language bar, so it gets a lot of visitors. Presumably some of those click the button in the sidebar leading to the Wikidata item and then press random buttons to figure out how to change their settings, either by typing in their preferred language into the box or by typing in things like "opt-out", in an attempt to change the settings. (The fonts settings box itself should probably link to a more informative page than it does now, imo.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again the big problem of Wikidata shows up. We don't have manuals for users how to do items of the same subjects. We have different opinions and every time we don't agree. That's why there is a mess. This is a serious reason for someone not to contribute to Wikidata... Xaris333 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This part of Wikidata is just about to be developed. As I said, we haven’t really done much work here yet, so there was nothing to document. Another important property for this field, sports competition competed at (P5249), was just created today. It would indeed be useful to write documentation about this part of the knowledge tree once this is in a better condition. If we find that a somewhat different model would be clearly preferable, we can simply change to it with little effort. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If we decide to talk about all the fields (starting from the main ones like sport teams), we could solve many problems and have the documentations. If we had had those discussions before, we may had created sports competition competed at (P5249) in the past... An of course we can change anything in the future... Now, we are just discussing some problems sporadically here or in other pages. And every user is doing what ever he think/know. We don't have something general to guide us.Xaris333 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Plans to graduate the New Filters on Watchlist out of beta

Collaboration team is announcing plans to graduate the New Filters for Edit Review out of beta on Watchlist by late June or early July. After launch, this suite of improved edit-search tools will be standard on all wikis. Individuals who prefer the existing Watchlist interface will be able to opt out by means of a new preference.

Over 70,000 people have activated the New Filters beta, which has been in testing on Watchlist for more than eight months. We feel confident that the features are stable and effective, but if you have thoughts about these tools or the beta graduation, please let us know on the project talk page. In particular, tell us if you know of a special incompatibility or other issue that makes the New Filters problematic on your wiki. We’ll examine the blocker and may delay release on your wiki until the issue can be addressed. - -Kaartic (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Source of error by bot

I found these erroneous coordinates entered by KrBot to Strombolicchio (Q1189187) and claimed to be sourced to the Russian Wikipedia. At the time the bot make the entry, the Russian Wikipedia had correct coordinates. Now I wonder, how could a "bot" make such an incorrect entry? Are all the coordinates entered by this bot false? How is the integrity of Wikidata data protected? Abductive (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they stem from here, which was the current ruwiki version at that time. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So, how could they get corrected in the source, but not on Wikidata? Is there really absolutely nothing ensuring the integrity of the data on Wikidata? Abductive (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, because contributors often do what bots never do: they check the data before adding them to WD and even sometimes they add some references. One of the advantages of humans, they contribute in field of interest and have a better knowledge helping to detect error. Snipre (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Transcription errors are a well-studied topic, and I assure that they occur any time a person uses a keyboard to enter data. "The SE error rates can be quite variable, and have been reported to be as low as 10.8^8 and as high as 124 per 10,000 fields. In one study where two SE datasets were created from the same data, 6.5% of the entered fields did not match in the two datasets. This translates to an error rate of 650 per 10,000 fields. In a study where two professional data managers conducted SE and consistency checks, error rates were lower, at 13 and 15 errors per 10,000 fields, the lower rates being attributed to the addition of consistency checks. Although there are few studies on DE, one study compared DE and SE and found that DE reduced the error rate from 22 to 19 per 10,000 fields." from Reducing errors from the electronic transcription of data collected on paper forms: a research data case study (Q31148099). Abductive (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So what's your point. How could we avoid this kind of "error"? --Succu (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Never send a human to do a machine's job." Jheald (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of help is citing a book title here to move on... --Succu (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Have you any evidence to support your assertions, Snipre? Or is it enough to wave away transcription errors & users who do not conduct further checks; and instead hail the model contributor as a paradigm? Any stats on the volume of data imported by bots from wikipedias and the source error rate? Any figures on contributor data error rates? Any info on algorithmic error detection versus human error detection, perhaps in terms of scale and accuracy? Or are we just doing opinion and anecdote now? In the instant case, the bot correctly referenced the source, in effect making no greater claims than that that wikipedia claimed those coordinates at that time; and leaving a means by which users could ascertain the credentials of the source. To be sure, it is always regrettable when bad data is entered into wikidata; still, I remain unconvinced by your uncompelling proposal to dispose of bathwater & baby. Abductive's proposal seems much nearer the mark, and such reconciliation is conducted, in all sorts of ways, on all sorts of subsets of wikidata, to the limit of our combined skill, interest, time, and availability of yardsticks. I think we're all clear on the need for this to continue, increase & widen in scope. Equally the shock horror of finding a single duff coordinate arriving in wikipedia as the result of a bot action is possibly an insufficient trigger for a clarion call for 'some sort of concerted database reconciliation', but rather business as usual. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been finding a very high percentage of errors in coordinates on Wikipedia, and when I come to Wikidata to correct them here, I find even more errors. Abductive (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
So what kind of consistency checks and/or concerted database reconciliation do you suggest for coordinates? (Not sure if "double entry" would work here). --- Jura 13:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I will happily volunteer to fix any inconsistencies. Perhaps a bot could generate a list of those coordinates that don't match their Wikipedia citation by more than 1 2 arcseconds and post it somewhere? Abductive (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Btw, I found another error in coordinates cited to the Russian Wikipedia by KrBot while looking up Volcán de Fuego (Q859376) because it erupted today. I am not actively looking for activity by KrBot, but I think it would be nice if somebody could. Abductive (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Once data is imported from Wikipedia, we generally don't check if it was updated there. Ideally wikis would eventually use directly data from here.For coordinates, I think Wikipedias could easily stop storing them locally and replace them with those from Wikidata. Commons coordinates templates have an option that compares them with Wikidata's. Maybe the same could be done for ruwiki: see the Commons sitelink on Q15961075. --- Jura 06:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course things would be easier for Wikidata if every other WMF project used Wikidata this way, but until someone comes up with a way that will be easy for people editing the articles in question, it won't have much appeal for contributors whose main focus is something other than Wikidata. Which is to say: if neither of the two normal ways of editing Wikipedia -- editing wikitext and using the WYSIWYG editor -- makes it easy to edit content drawn from Wikidata, it's no wonder that Wikipedians find that an unappealing process to make corrections. Parallel issues for Commons & others as users of data. - Jmabel (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt adding coordinates directly in Wikipedia is easier than just adding a P625 in Wikidata. This isn't necessarily true for other properties. --- Jura 19:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the coordinates themselves are about the same level of difficulty regardless of whether it's Wikidata or Wikipedia. But adding the citation to the source is much more difficult in Wikidata, because one (potentially) has to search to see if the work, edition, article, authors, etc., already exist, and if not, add them, before you can actually add the citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Wikidata has a GUI for coordinates. It might be possible to develop a way to replace coordinates in Wikipedia with those at Wikidata. --- Jura 13:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Introducing Toolhub

What does your participation on the Wikimedia projects look like? Do you edit articles? Upload files? Patrol vandalism? Translate articles? Translate interface messages? Do you organize people, online or offline? Do you train new editors, or new trainers? Do you write code?

There are many different ways to contribute to Wikimedia – more than you would expect just from reading Wikipedia articles. Over the past several years, volunteers have developed technical tools that help Wikimedians improve content, patrol vandalism, and perform many other tasks. They make it possible to do what the wiki software alone cannot accomplish. Without these tools, many of our projects would slow down to a crawl.

I am very happy to announce a new project called Toolhub which seeks to create a searchable index of these tools in all languages. We are building this tool catalog based on what our communities need. If you would like to help, please take a look at m:Toolhub and review the question at the top of the page. You can also leave feedback in any language on the talkpage. You can also email me private feedback. Harej (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

How to do a bulk import of JSON/RDF data?

I'm currently working with well structured RDF data on a OntoWiki knowledge base.
I'm interested to import these data into a local and personal platform running wikidata.
How is it possible?

AFAIK, it seems Wikidata has MariaDB as backend and generate triple from it to benefit the SPQARL service.
Is exist a tool to do bulk import from RDF or JSON files?
If yes, where it exists the documentation to do this?

@Filrouge7: I'm not sure what you mean by "a local wikidata". Are you talking about Wikidata (this site) or are you talking about running Wikibase on a different machine? - Jmabel (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I edited my message. Actually, it was a local server running wikidata in which I want to make a bulk import from JSON or RDF data. Filrouge7 (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Trying to add a description

I'm trying to add a description to Q9068534 where it says 'No decription defined', but when I click the top [edit] link, it won't let me. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea why this wasn't working for you, but I've filled in a description in English & Spanish. - Jmabel (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, phase two is another four years work :-). We have good data for recent years, though! Andrew Gray (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Congrats, sorry about the pre-existing one. Impressive work on English/British/UK parliamentarians. Amazing how much data it involves when one goes all the way back. Maybe from a data quality point of view, it would be good to have a secondary source for recent data. There is some risk involved relying merely on tertiary sources outside WMF. How accessible is the current data model for new users? --- Jura 08:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jura: Recent data (~1997-date) is generally drawn from the MySociety database, not-quite-so-recent data (1832-1997) from Historic Hansard (though that needs a *lot* of manual cleanup work). The official parliamentary MNIS database has recently become accessible and I'm hoping to get our data aligned with that as well, which will probably get us back to sometime in the nineties. So that will give us a nice mix of recent primary + secondary.

From a reliablity perspective, pne of the things I'm working on is some way to take simple static snapshots of the cleaned data and make it available somewhere so that people don't have to tangle with Wikidata to make sense of it if all they need is an authority list of names and dates - we could then run periodic updates but it could be clearly versioned and static.

We ran a workshop with non-Wikidata people at the Welsh Assembly last year (focusing on Welsh politicians, obv) and I was pleasantly surprised by how accessible they found the data model. When I've discussed the data model with (non-Wikidata but political data) specialists, they've generally felt it's robust and clear, with a few questions around specific details like how we define start dates (there are about six possible options and no-one quite agrees on what one to go for; we picked the simplest!) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Username policy

The template {{uw-username}} refers to "Wikidata's username policy". Do we have a username policy? Lambiam (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia's is at en:Wikipedia:Username policy - the core difference between that and Wikidata's current practice is the former's prohibition of corporate accounts (which are also allowed on some other Wikipedias, and on Wikimedia Commons - see c:Commons:Username_policy). It would be sensible to adopt the prohibition of misleading, disruptive, offensive or non-script usernames from that document. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Because of global accounts it would in fact make sense to have a unified username policy across the Wikimedia projects, but that may be an unrealistic aim. Apparently we (or at least some Wikidatans) also have a problem with corporate accounts; see User talk:Zetaespacial. (The account is blocked on the English Wikipedia, but not on its Spanish sister project or elsewhere.) I do not care which username policy exactly is adopted as long as it creates no impediment to good-faith contributors, but I think we should not refer to "Wikidata's username policy" if we don't have any. Lambiam (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that account. We have valuble contributors that use names that would be forbidden by EnWiki standards and I'm not aware of any problems we encountered with users who have such names. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

While trying to find a way to solve a problem about fetching that data from Wikidata to Wikipedia, I realize that we don't have in that data something to show which of event is the "best". I mean that the first teams qualifies to Champions League, that is the event that the best teams of the league qualifies to. So I suggest that

You can probably start by creating an item about every scheduled match, if these don't exist yet. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is an easy way to upload the data, will require lot of volunteers to achieve, there was one for Euro 2016 which can be taken as reference. Euro 2016 Project . Unnited meta (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Improvements coming soon on Watchlists

Hello

Sorry to use English. Please help translate to your language! Thank you.

In short: starting on June 18, New Filters for Edit Review (now in Beta) will become standard on Watchlists. They provide an array of new tools and an improved interface. If you prefer the current page you will be able to opt out. Learn more about the New Filters.

Over 70,000 people have activated the New Filters beta, which has been in testing on Watchlist for more than eight months. We feel confident that the features are stable and effective, but if you have thoughts about these tools or the beta graduation, please let us know on the project talk page. In particular, tell us if you know of a special incompatibility or other issue that makes the New Filters problematic on your wiki. We’ll examine the blocker and may delay release on your wiki until the issue can be addressed.

The deployment will start on June 18 or on June 25, depending on the wiki (check the list). After the deployment, you will also be able to opt-out this change directly from the Watchlist page and also in your preferences.

How to be ready?

Please share this announcement!

If you use local Gadgets that change things on your Watchlist pages, or have a customized scripts or CSS, be ready. You may have to make some changes to your configuration. Despite the fact that we have tried to take most cases into consideration, some configurations may break. The Beta phase is a great opportunity to have a look at local scripts and gadgets: some of them may be replaced by native features from the Beta feature.

Not sure if that actually works. It's the constraint defined on Property:P1793. Maybe it's more worthwhile to check if the constraint for a specific property (e.g. P18) work on an item using that property (an image somewhere). The querry on the format constraint at Property talk:P18 can help you with that. --- Jura 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Pantheon

Not sure how best to tease this apart. I sampled some of the Wikipedia articles in various languages, and they appear all to be about a "pantheon" in the sense of the collection of gods of a particular religion or mythos. (Ironically, given that the etymology of the word is Greek, no article in Greek.) However, the linked Commons:Category:Pantheons is relates to the literal Greek meaning of Πάνθεον, a temple of all of the gods (of a particular religion or mythos). And, equally oddly, while we have many Wikipedia articles on pantheons in the latter sense, I don't offhand see where any Wikipedia has an article on the concept of pantheons in that sense, in general.

It presume that at the very least the Commons category should be decoupled from the Wikipedia articles that are about a different (albeit related) concept, maybe connected by a different from (P1889). May I assume that we also should create another category for the concept in the Commons category? Also, I would imagine that the latter should be a class, and the various buildings of that sort that have items should be instances of that class. - 04:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at en:Pantheon, and the Commons category, the buildings don't seem to make up a class of ancient Roman temples. The Commons category seems to be nothing more than a group of buildings that have "Pantheon" in their name. Ghouston (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Lacking further response, that is what I will do. - Jmabel (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I now see Wikidata really doesn't have items/classes like 'buildings called "Pantheon"'. So what should I do with that Commons category? - Jmabel (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think there must be quite a few Commons categories that can't be connected to Wikidata, because there are no corresponding categories in other projects for them to link with (so no need for a Category item), and a somewhat obscure concept behind the category which isn't really appropriate for a main item. c:Category:Automobiles facing left seems like another one. Ghouston (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Entering a label in a language I don't normally use

I've forgotten (and can't work out) where to configure what languages I use for labels. I would like to enter a label in a language I don't ordinarily use.

Is there a way to do this without changing my preferences?

Where do I go to change the preference of which languages are offered to me to enter labels?

Is there somewhere I should have been able to find this in documentation?

@Jmabel: If you adjust the languages in your Babel boxes, you can control what languages you can edit labels/descriptions/aliases in without going to "Labels list". Mahir256 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've been trying to turn Help:Modelling into something useful, I seem now to have hit the limit for template inclusions. Is there any way to override that? (I'm guessing not.) If not, would there be any problem with my splitting the page into two, one for "General" and the other for "By domains"? Also open to other suggestions. - Jmabel (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I am sure no one would object to a reasonable division of the page into subpages which are linked from the main page. Keeping all of it in one place seems rather unwieldy. Mahir256 (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. If I make it look like tabs, it would be very little impact to anyone, I think. - Jmabel (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It may be better if they are separate subpages entirely (unless you're talking about presenting the subpages like the tabs on this page). If everything is on one page, and even if only one 'tab' is visible, the rest of the page gets loaded into the web browser and could slow it down. Mahir256 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: Yes, physically separate pages. I've already done it, though I have to look through and see if I may have gotten any links messed up. - Jmabel (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You can look for values of a statement in Special:Search

Hello all,

A few days ago, the discovery team from WMF introduced a new magic word to search for string values and external identifiers values: haswbstatement. Here are a few examples on how it works:

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): In your announcement, the documentation and the phab-ticket it sounds like haswbstatement would work for every pair of P…=Q… but as Jura pointed out, it seems only to work with P31. Is this a bug in the feature or a not documented but known limitation of the feature? -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): I just saw this through today's weekly summary. It's a good step forward, but most people are just going to want to search for something like "nhle 1221685" and expect to end up at Lovell Telescope (Q555130), if they are even going to include the identifier acronym rather than just copy-pasting the ID value. They aren't going to look for something as obscure as "haswbstatement". It sounds like this will be useful for experienced Wikidata users, but not more widely than that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your feedback.

The fact that only P31 and P279 are supported for now is an intentional restriction, mentioned in the main ticket. If you want to request more features, feel free to open a subtask. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Prosperity?

For prosperity and usefulness is this going to be recorded somewhere so that it is not lost? Is it time for Wikidata:Search or would this be better written into Mediawiki:search-summary or some multi-language-templated style that is transcluded into that page? — billinghurstsDrewth 22:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean "posterity"? Or do you mean something else and I'm misunderstanding? Can't see what it would have to do with prosperity. - Jmabel (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I noted previous discussions about the relation between platform (P400) and operating system (P306).
It has been proposed to merge the two properties.
English Wikipedia article about considers computing platform a broader concept than operating system that encompasses also browsers, apps like Microsoft Excel, virtual machines, PAAS and software frameworks.

I did what you said but there are still some constrains. Xaris333 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think generic values are valid for executive body (P208). If the value is worth dding the Wikidata way is to create an item for it. If a property like it is filled with general values that violates reasonble expecations of data users. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

So I have to create 105 new items? Xaris333 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Two language boxes

This does not appear with the Bengali user interface, so I have no idea. This file seems to be generating the first box, and I'm guessing the second box is generated by <languages/>. @Legoktm, Nikerabbit, Aaron Schulz:, as the last people to edit the file according to GitHub's history; any idea what might be going on? Mahir256 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see two boxes either. --Nikerabbit (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, It worthless to do the same for communities. Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Overriding same label/description check

There is a check in Wikidata UI that prevents creating items with same label/description in the same language. Which is generally very useful, however there are some cases where it doesn't work very well. E.g. some painters have an annoying habit of reusing painting topics (i.e. same painter can have several portraits of the same person, or several paintings of "Woman with Dog"). In this case, I wonder what would be the best way?

@Laboramus: I had the same issue with some monuments and photos I was creating the items. My solution was (once they are from the same artist/photographer, same year, etc, I put "# of the series" like here Vista aérea da cidade de São Paulo/SP (Q53140975). I really don't think override the check is a good thing. I suggest, if there are some property that differentiate one from the other, you should go in that way. If there's nothing to differentiate (like in my example), change the description to something like I said "# of the series". Good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The items should be individually identifiable using only the label and description, so if you have 3 painting with the same name by the same artist you have to start pulling in extra factors to the description. The most obvious factor is time, and that can fix this issue even if an artist paints 3 works with the same name in a single week. Other factor could also be used, for example if there are 3 works with the same name, each painted in a different way? signed in a different way? different size? Any factor that can distinguish them will work, although the future proof one will probably always be time. ·addshore·talk to me! 07:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For undated paintings or painters whose paintings are only approximate, please use the location (church, museum, person who commissioned the work, the last location published for the work, etc) to disambiguate the description, so e.g. title= "Self-Portrait" and description= "painting by XXX (Uffizi)" vs. "painting by XXX (Berlin)" Jane023 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to know: It's possible. I done it for problem with upper/lower case in disambiguation items, but it's better minimize use. --ValterVB (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As addshore said it's important to make the description more concrete in these cases in order to help other people tell them apart. Otherwise people might not understand they're different paintings and merge them. And it's impossible to tell them apart in item selectors etc. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

participant of

It is a complicated properties for sport teams. See for example APOEL F.C. (Q131378). It has values (seasons) for championship, cup, super cup, uefa cup, champions league, cup winners cup etc. A lot of them, with not a chronological order etc. It's difficult to find something. I think is not the best way to show that. I suggest to have something like that:

etc. So, we will have a values for the general competitions, the items of the leagues or cup, and with the qualifier we can have the seasons. Of course P1264 is not a good solution. Is there any other property to use?

Yes, I know that. That's the way we are doing it now. He also participated in many other events. Some items have more than 200 items for P1344. And some can have more than 300. Xaris333 (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Error saving pages: automatic check thinks a value is a Lexeme

Could not save due to an error:The save has failed. This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Do not allow Lexeme entities to be used on Items of Properties

Commons gallery vs category sitelinks

I'm contemplating whether it would be worth having an RFC over whether Commons categories should be given priority over Commons galleries on main item sitelinks, in cases where there is no Category item. Creating a category item just for the Commons category is currently forbidden by Wikidata:Notability. There are Commons categories like c:Category:Flow charts and many taxon items like c:Category:Cordulegaster boltonii which can't be sitelinked to Wikidata because the sitelink is already used by a gallery. It's also possible that Commons category sitelinks would be removed if somebody created a new gallery.

I think sitelinks to Commons categories are more important that sitelinks to galleries, since Categories are essentially the main name space on Commons, and have more comprehensive contents. The sitelinks are increasingly used by templates on the Commons categories, which doesn't seem to be so important for galleries. Ghouston (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I remember that one, and the one in 2015, but neither had a clear outcome, and current practice doesn't encourage (and the notability policy forbids) the creation of category items just so that Commons can have two sitelinks. So it seems in some cases we have to pick which sitelink is preferred. Ghouston (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ghouston: I'm not sure you're right about the latter. As I understand it, if there is also a Commons gallery, what is recommended at the moment currently is to make a category item here, sitelink the category item to the Commons category, and then to link the two items here together with a category's main topic (P301) / topic's main category (P910) pair of statements. Most of the templates on Commons should be able to navigate that, and be able to pull information for the Commons category page from the main topic item here.

No strong view against change, but the present system is workable I think. Jheald (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not following the logic of the proposal. If the real world Commons has two features to which an item might be linked - category & gallery - should we not provide the capability to link to the two features rather than perpetuate an arrangement that forces us to ration, prioritise & choose one over the other? Further, should we not take up the opportunity to a) sort out the overlap between a commons sitelink and Commons category (P373) and b) standardise the interface for P373 and topic's main category (P910). --Tagishsimon (talk)

Changing Wikidata:Notability would work too. I had the idea there wasn't much enthusiasm for creating category items just to hold a Commons sitelink, but I suppose it's only needed when there's a gallery. The gallery sitelinks seem only marginally useful though. Ghouston (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much, but Commons category (P373) should absolutely not be removed from the original (non-category) item, because there are many searches that depend on it, especially in exactly this scenario, when the sitelink does not go from that item. Jheald (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think having an RfC on this would be a good step forward. There are several different options (default to commons category as the sitelink being one; mass-create category items being another; have two sitelinks to commons being a third but one that's unpopular with the developers), but there's increasingly more value in sitelinking to the categories rather than the galleries on commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Learning to Generate Wikipedia Summaries for Underserved Languages from Wikidata, presented at the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics by Lucie Kaffee and Hady Elsahar (see the poster and the paper)

Developing a prototype for usability testing for how the term box (labels, descriptions, aliases) could work on mobile

Investigating how we can do the display of items (their label and sometimes description when linked to in a statement or in listings like Recent Changes) in a way that is less of an issue for the database

Working on including the dispatch lag in the maxlag API to make it easier for bots to see when they should stop editing because of performance reasons (phabricator:T194950)

Working on adding a Lua function to check if an item is a subclass/instance of another one (phabricator:T179155)

Created an API that returns constraint violations for an item in TTL format in preparation for making constraint violations queryable in the query service (phabricator:T194762)

Started planning for support for Senses

Added more helpful text on Special:NewLexeme to make it easier to understand what information is required (phabricator:T193602)

Working on pre-filling the spelling variant for a new Form's representation (phabricator:T195708)

So I'm still wondering that when we could add support to Outreach wiki? That's the final wiki that is easy-to-deploy; compare with Incubator, Beta Wikiversity and Old Wikisource, which are having problem that provide in-wiki cross-language links, and compare with Private/Fishbowl wikis which may violate WMF terms of use, I don't even see any blockers to do that. --218.68.229.180 01:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

gets a warning. I'm hoping someone with more experience here than I can come up with appropriate parent classes. - Jmabel (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Jura1 may know better as the item creator, but it looks to me like the item arises out of language wikis having Category:Individual aircraft (Q7405461) and Q21051516 being required to express the category's main topic. I would advise against using it as a P31 value, and instead use

Not sure if I'd do it the same way today. I think it was a general problem with vehicles and other mass produced objects. As P31=aircraft are mostly instances of "aircraft model", it seems it still is. It does seem helpful to have a P31 value other than the model. If you are merely concerned about the warnings, you could just change the P31 on Q21051516 to P279. Avoiding Q11436 probably saves you many problems. --- Jura 04:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Since this is one of the examples at Help:Modelling/By domains#Aircraft (I didn't add it, I just fleshed it out), it would behoove us to get it right, whatever right is. I'm pretty new here myself. I'm trying to update & flesh out Help:Modelling to accurately describe current practice, since until I started working on it, it had hardly been touched in years. This is a case where, rather than suggestions, I'd really appreciate if someone who knows Wikidata better than I makes the actual decisions, and I merely document the outcome. - Jmabel (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd really appreciate if someone who knows Wikidata better than I makes the actual decisions, and I merely document the outcome. - Jmabel (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

, which is fine with me, and removes my issue of a "bad" item being given as a paradigm, but still leaves me at a loss in one respect: what, then, is no label (Q21051516) about and how is it to be used? - Jmabel (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the page you are updating is actually being used. People describe current practices in Wikiprojects. Maybe it's preferable to just cross reference their pages. --- Jura 04:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to turn it into something usable. A lot of it clearly should just be links to WikiProjects where they exist, and that's what I've been doing. However, as far as I can tell there is absolutely no equivalent of Help:Modelling/General and I'm pretty sure that what I've done with it is already about as useful an introduction as there is for someone who is familiar with data modeling but new to Wikidata. (Do you have something better? If so, we need to link it a lot more prominently, because I went looking for something of the sort a month or so ago & sure didn't find it.) And when I say "about as useful an introduction as there is" I don't mean it's by any means what is needed. I mean it's a decent start, and I couldn't find anything before that was a decent start. - Jmabel (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Inception

, which I'm sure is accurate for the museum, but the house was built in 1857. inception (P571) is supposed to be single-valued, so how would both of these facts be well expressed? - Jmabel (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(EC) In short, IMO, inception should contain the date the building was completed. The start time for the museum could either be represented as a P580 Qualifier of the P31 museum statement (or if a distinction between the museum organisation and the house can be made, then occupant (P466) could be used to specify the museum as tenant and P580 as a PQ of that statement ... and per Pmt the museum organisation could have its own item). --Tagishsimon (talk)

I like the idea of start time for the P31 museum statement. - Jmabel (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the discussion there makes sense in the case where a museum just happens to be housed in an historic building -- e.g. where a former palace is used as a art museum, or a former main post office as a history museum -- but less in a case like this, a "house museum," where the sole exhibits are the building itself and its furnishings. - Jmabel (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Wikidata and I am quite indifferent to the question whether sovereign countries should be put into themselves or not. However, I would be grateful if geographical entities can be declared to be within Ireland without violating a constraint. Currently, you will get a constraint warning for all things Irish which refers to Property:P17#P2302 and states Ireland should have a statement country. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As elaborated above, my revert was based on a previous discussion that led to a consensus which was recently re-affirmed (see post by 99of9). I have refered to this discussion and wouldn't have reverted it unless I wouldn't have found it.

Anyway, I do not think that it is helpful to replace one inconsistency by another. And at the moment we have one with Ireland (but not with other countries like Germany (Q183)). If this self-reference is to be undone it should be done IMHO on base of a new discussion. A removal of the self-references would have to be done by bot as well and should surely not be executed without removing the associated requirement first. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability question

We have a class Jewish museum (Q1307560) because there is an analogous article in de-wiki. We have an item Category:African-American museums (Q8225342) because Commons has such a category. Do I understand correctly that I am not supposed to create a class item analogous to Q1307560 for the underlying topic of Q8225342 until someone sees fit to write an article in one of the Wikipedias about African-American museums in general? - Jmabel (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Bird merge?

Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Can someone who knows what they are doing tease apart the mess of sitelinks at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Q999280)? I'm pretty sure new items need to be created. Joint Base Lewis-McChord is a U.S. military installation that is an amalgamation of the United States Army's Fort Lewis and the United States Air Force's McChord Air Force Base. Our description of it as an instance of airport (Q1248784) apply only to the last, and it looks like the article in various languages may be about any of the three entities. Also, I'd be a bit suspicious of everywhere it's been used as a property value. - Jmabel (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tried splitting the list of paricipants in half, to get below the maximimum 50 limit for group pings; and also removed initial '#'s from the start of lines for participants.

But the <span style="VISIBILITY:hidden;display:none"> added by the {{Ping project}} template is being ignored -- I'm still getting a visible list of names, which usually means something is broken & the ping isn't going to work.

Can anybody spot what I have missed, and how to fix it?

Also pinging @Zolo, TomT0m: to see if they can see anything. Jheald (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned-up the lists of a few WikiProjects as they started displaying every time they were used. I think the thing to do is to remove anything but the name, e.g. Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry/Participants. --- Jura 15:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Instead ultimately I found that what broke the formatting or not was simply whether I had tried to indent the line or not: if I started the line with a :, then nothing I could do would stop all of the names being shown. But if I removed the : then they would all be hidden.

As I said, bizarre. But (I hope) I have now managed to ping the project successfully. Jheald (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's the combination of the two. There are lists that didn't show before, but started displaying after some users added their names with more fun formatting. --- Jura 04:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile web

Update on page issues on mobile web

Please help translate to your language
Hi everyone. The Readers web team has recently begun working on exposing issue templates on the mobile website. Currently, details about issues with page content are generally hidden on the mobile website. This leaves readers unaware of the reliability of the pages they are reading. The goal of this project is to improve awareness of particular issues within an article on the mobile web. We will do this by changing the visual styling of page issues.

Our next step would be to start implementing these changes. We wanted to reach out to you for any concerns, thoughts, and suggestions you might have before beginning development. Please visit the project page where we have more information and mockups of how this may look. Please leave feedback on the talk page.

I think we shouldn't. As to items for individual productions of a ballet, that's something else, they could have some cast info, but even this is quite beyond the scope of what Wikidata can possibly do. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, Wikidata makes impossible possible! :) Anyway it seems like a logical question to try to answer in Wikidata: "in what ballets this dancer danced?" It is very similar to roles in films which we support. --Infovarius (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the original cast of a ballet is usually significant in a way that later casts are not. Very often, the ballet was choreographed with particular dancers in mind; any later production is something of a recreation. - Jmabel (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As to the model indicated at WikiProject Theatre you would need an item for the production of the ballet the dancer participated in. There you could add the dancers using cast member (P161).

One could think about allowing some shortcut by creating a new property "(significant) roles" and using the character role (linked to the ballet/opera/drama via present in work (P1441)) to link between dancer and ballet. Then you would only need to create the role. This way we could get all dancers who danced Odette or Carabosse (without the need to indicate every production they performed this role in - which can be many). One could do the same with opera singers (e.g. to indicate who performed the role of Rusalka in Rusalka (Q831255)). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think it might be useful at some point to have a property "significant roles" in analogy to notable work (P800) - especially as we have started to ingest performing arts productions in a systematic manner (see: WikiProject:Performing arts).

I would however be a bit hesitant about using performer (P175) on the character item itself; in case of popular works, the list would simply get too long.

I'll just do it, anybody can change it back if they think it's wrong. Ghouston (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know that was a possibility, and to be honest I'm sure I don't yet properly understand the creation of constraints here. - Jmabel (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Jmabel, "GNU variant" (Q1475825) looks similar to "individual aircraft" (Q21051516). Each not needed for modelling. Items are subclasses of GNU (OS) or aircraft or in case of the latter there are also items that are instances of aircraft, but I am not aware that there would be any instance of an OS be described here. 85.180.29.96 06:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the variants themselves can based on (P144)GNU (Q44571) instead of subclass of GNU variant (Q1475825). Wikidata tends to have this problem, superfluous items that need to be kept because they have Wikipedia articles, giving multiple ways to do the same thing. Ghouston (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

GNU variant = GNU subclass? Each OS item is an instance of a variant? GNU variant a "metaclass" (Q19478619)? German description says "ein GNU-Betriebssystem, das nicht Hurd als Kernel verwenden" - the variants are only those GNU OS that are not GNU/Hurd OS. 85.180.29.96 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. So...

In reworking Help:Modelling, I've been trying when possible to flesh out the (mininally elaborated) examples already there, instead of coming in as an outsider and deciding what are good examples. But, increasingly, it looks like it wasn't even a list of good examples! No wonder it's been hard for outsiders like me coming from sister projects to make head or tail of how to do things here. Do I understand correctly that "GNU variant" isn't even a good example of what comes up in modeling OSs, and shouldn't be used as an example?

If some items like "GNU variant" and "individual aircraft" shouldn't be used as properties of other items, shouldn't there be some property to mark them as disparageddeprecated? minor reword 22:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Jumping back to my initial question in this section: I would think that OSs are "works" (as are programs and software packages in general). Is there any argument against having a statement that says so?

Jmabel "Is there any argument against having a statement that says so?" - Why would that be done by a (= one?) statement as it something that is done by Wikidata:Classification? 92.228.157.51 12:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course it could and presumably should be done by indirect subclassing. And it looks like it now is. So I take it that was not the cause of the warning I had above, and it was merely the badly done constraint. Fine.

My first two questions just above still stand. - Jmabel (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Jmabel, "deprecated" in what sense? Wikidata started with the goal to collect statements, not to invent statements. Most common are statements in source what something is, not what it is not. So one finds A isA B, less often A isNotA B. But even more rare would be "B is deprecated for 'A isA B'". And in that specific case, was it ever endorsed by someone else than Wikidata contributors?85.181.248.20 12:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel like I'm having to discuss this with a ghost, in that you come in from an IP address, and all of the possibilities that entails, including that you might be someone evading a block. Please log in.

"Deprecated" meaning that it would almost always be a mistake to use these as the target of a property. If "individual aircraft" is not an appropriate instance of (P31) for an individual aircraft, that is very confusing. If a variant of GNU should not be an instance of "GNU variant", that is very confusing. - Jmabel (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no character restriction in English?

on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) : I made the translation in Turkish. But it gives a warning that is limited to 250 characters. However, the number of English characters is 353. If you only want to do Wikidata in English, let us know. This is a huge bullshit. --İncelemeelemani (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems as odious a way of raising an issue as I can think of. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Attack the reporter, that is what is odious. And certainly there are ways more odious, so your statement is propaganda against İncelemeelemani. 85.180.29.96 14:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It can hurt to tell the truths and listen to them. --İncelemeelemani (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Help pages

Users from other projects comes to this project to add and change items and statements about their articles, and more often than not they don't read English very well. They need introductions in their own language, or some other language they can understand.

A lot of the help pages use a local template to link manually translated pages instead of using the on-wiki translation support. It is very difficult to keep the translations in sync, and it wastes manpower as manual translation is slow and error prone.

Simply abandon the translations of the help pages that has the (crappy) template system, clean up the source version (they are bloathed), and mark them for translation. Jeblad (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeblad: While I agree with you on most of these cases, translating Help:Label is not as simple as the label rules are very language-specific, for example regarding capitalization. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization is only a minor detail. Jeblad (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would hope soon to add Help:Modelling and its subpages to this list; I believe I have that more or less beaten into shape. - Jmabel (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at how many help pages with templates are in fact translated, and compare to how many are translated if they are set up for the translation system. Use the templates and the help pages will nearly ever be translated, and they will be horribly outdated. Jeblad (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to label/description/alias there's no need to have the same rules for different languages. As such I don't think it should be translated this way. One practical example is romanization. How to do it can be decided invidually by the people who actually speak the relevant language. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocking Account

Can someone block this account? That is seannemann123. I'm working on the Commons mobile application, and I am adding the feature to notify a user if they are blocked. I would like this account to be blocked for testing purposes. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Here is the link to the issue I am working on

It's a question that comes up once in a while. Most of the time, we just ignore it, unless the constraint is set to mandatory. Maybe the single value constraint should simply be removed. --- Jura 16:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it's one of possible options. I won't answer the second question as it's irrelevant. Wostr(talk) 17:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it depends on why there are two identifiers. If they are a duplicate in the other database then the right thing to do is to mark one as prefered and one as normal. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a result of merging different entries in this database, but I couldn't find any confirmation. Wostr(talk) 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that may be the solution, I'll discuss this in WikiProject Chemistry. Wostr(talk) 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixing a regular expression for a format constraint

Irish National Monument ID (P4059) has currently a format constraint with the following regular expression “[1-9]\d*(,\d+)?” which was in the original proposal. This is, however, not correct. Irish national monument numbers consist of multiple digits, optionally followed by a letter. Hence “[1-9]\d*[A-Z]?” would be more appropriate. Example: St. Dairbhile's Church (Q17276540) has monument number 99A per the official list by the Irish Government. Where should format fixes like this be discussed? Is it possible to run a test to see what would be affected by such a change? Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

if it's just a matter of correcting the regex, I'd go ahead and do it (it's at Property:P4059#P2302). The template on the talk page of the property includes a sparql query that generally works to check how the current values match it. --- Jura 05:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

According to this older list the identifier for that item should be 99,01. Anyway, as Jura said, on Property talk:P4059 you find this query in the constraints boxes, where you can test whether things break if you change the regex. It is okay to just fix it, but you can leave a notice on the property talk page too, if you like. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You would first need to create the article on Wikisource, and transclude the page content. Once there is a page on Wikisource for the specific article, then you create a Wikidata item for that article. Then you can link the WD item for the person to the WD item for the article. We already do this with the Dictionary of National Biography entries, the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, and a few similar works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you show an example, I only see links to authors, and portals for subjects of articles tend to be deleted. --RAN (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Some towns don't have "instance of" Q3957 while description shows they are towns

That makes extraction of towns from the database difficult to me. Any chance that someone might write a robot to fix these issues? Thanks – The preceding unsigned comment was added byMladen.adamovic (talk • contribs) at 13:30, 8 June 2018‎ (UTC).

I'm not familiar with how towns/cities/settlements are handled on Wikidata, but terms like "town" can be a bit problematic, because their exact definition can be vague and varies between languages and countries. See en:Town for all the different definitions. So a settlement (to use a broad term) might be described as a "town" (town (Q3957)) in English, but might not necessarily fall under the definitions of the respective labels in other languages on town (Q3957). --Kam Solusar (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. One tends to create items before adding them in statements to other items. It does not work well the other way around. Meanwhile, you linked the main subject of the paper to an article which had no links to the disease. Explain, please, how someone interested in a report on all papers the main subject of which relate to Alzheimer's disease will find the paper with Q54887745 as you designed it? This is what I mean by misguided and counterproductive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not true. In most cases one can add items before creating them first, because others have created them. But still, only because an item was created before it was added, which is what must happen, does not mean that the item creator wants the created item to be the main subject of anything. So, maybe you have seen that ("Ah, I see") but your see-tools must have fooled you, since my brain is still in my head and no one else is in the room here. 85.180.29.96 16:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You did not explain how the article could be found, based on your confection of main subject. That structure/mapping question is the substantive issue right now. A second issue - given the 40,000:1 ratio of artcles with main subject of AD versus main subject of ADO - is whether you have any grasp of the relationship between granularity of subject indexing, and discoverability of records; your absolutist approach suggests not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Tagishsimon, thank you very much for your feedback. You are very eloquent. You also seem to like to control the discussion and not only that also lead it to something useful. I have one question - why do you talk so much about users and don't spend all your time talking about what you call substantive issue? 92.230.136.177 01:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be off topic. Please explain how the article can be found by someone interested in Alzheimer's Disease under your arrangement of dissociating it entirely from Alzheimer's Disease. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"You seem to be off topic." - why do you talk so much about users? And what is "Alzheimer's Disease"? 92.228.157.51 12:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You're a dishonest person and you're arguing in bad faith. There's no point in continuing the discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, Dear Tagishsimon, you wrote "You're a dishonest person" - why do you talk so much about users? And you wrote "you're arguing in bad faith" - why do you talk so much about users? 92.228.157.51 17:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

QuickStatementsBot - AD - item facts

QuickStatementsBot - AD - discussion part 2

Please note, main subject (P921), while its English label suggests should be unique, has no such constraint defined, and in typical use applied to scientific articles I would expect several "main subjects" to be relevant for search and retrieval purposes. So there's nothing wrong with adding "AD" and "ADO" and whatever else people think is relevant. P921 values that are to any degree helpful for searching should NOT be removed! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

An item like Alzheimer's Disease Ontology (Q54887745) allows that ontology to be listed when someone queries for all ontologies that use BFO. It's a notable entity apart from a desire to describe the topic of that paper. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like language issues. "Product" has multiple meanings in English, and I'm strongly inclined to believe that in this case it refers to the "result" sense, not the "commercial good" sense. However, sometimes ambiguities like this result in descriptions with different meanings. @Brya: What language do you use as your interface setting? --Yair rand (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, "natural product of taxon" here refers to something that is traded, often enough internationally. The property often is misused, for example for when "found in taxon" should be used. If "result" is allowed in, a huge inflation would result: almost anything would qualify, like "human kidney", "nail clippings", and way beyond. If a property for that is felt to be necessary, create a new property for that. - Brya (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Brya here. Otherwise it would be possible to list thousands of products. It would make more sense to link in some way from human breast milk to human (or Homo Sapiens) then the other way around. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the examples in the proposals are clear on that this is for tradeable natural products. It might be argued that Homo sapiens 'produces' sweat and urine, but it would be singularly pointless to record this with this property. And there are several ways to link "human breast milk" to Homo sapiens without using the property "natural product of taxon". - Brya (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you insist on such a pedantic interpretation (wholly unjustified by either the aforesaid examples or by the terms of the property proposal): [8][9][10]. And human urine has been used for centuries in agriculture, tanning, gunpowder production, and other trades; including being collected commercially: en:Urine#Uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The question is not if human breast milk is sometimes sold (human kidneys are sometimes sold), but if it is widely accepted as a tradable product. There are taboos and laws against selling it. More importantly, human breast milk is very commonly present, but its role in human society is not that of a tradeable product; only a very minute portion of the whole is sold. - Brya (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a question of your own invention. It need not trouble us here. Levels of trade, taboos, and laws are all red herrings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Reality is out there, no matter how hard some people try to ignore it. - Brya (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jklamo: I object. Please don't be destructive and restore all of them. In most cities (at least where I added these statements) this values are original (in the sense that they cannot be covered by existed P1082 claims) and useful. Moreover, often deletion loses the information at all (as there are no other information about reaching such milestones, at least in P1082 claims). And about second largest city (Q50330360), let's discuss it, when you will be able to represent the same information without this item. --Infovarius (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Try for example to answer questions: "Which millioner cities were there at 1910?", "What is the first 100,000 city?" with aid of only P1082. --Infovarius (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please restore all removed claims! Or at least replace them with similar ones without population. With your removal of e.g. Birmingham (Q2256) it is no longer instance of city (Q515) and it breaks a lot of queries that rely on that kind of city hierarchy. Broken query example: SELECT ?city { ?city wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q515. }

Usefulnes of full statistical history of a country

How useful would it be to have a full history of statistics of a country? For example we would like to add a large amount of the Central Bureau of Statistics(Netherlands) data as properties with values per year for the "Netherlands" item (Q55). As an example we have added a small amount of this data to the test.wikidata page for the "Netherlands" item. https://test.wikidata.org/wiki/Q165131. Historical data for the "Population" item is the example, we would replicate this for hundreds of properties of The Netherlands. It would probably add 100,000+ data items of current and historical data of the country.

Our concern is that it might be too much data to add to a single item and wouldn't be useful to anyone since the same data is readily available at the CBS website (https://opendata.cbs.nl). – The preceding unsigned comment was added byCBSBot (talk • contribs).

I would rather have this data available as JSONstat, with sufficient information in the item to load it as necessary. Most statistics isn't about a specific item, but about an intersection between several items. Netherlands, children and kindergarten for example. Jeblad (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeblad: So you would say that this type of data is not suitable to be placed on wikidata? CBSBot

@CBSBot: I've been wondering about statistics, and when it is sufficient important to an subject to include it as a set of claims. A nation consists of people, and I guess it would be prudent to include statistics about those people in the item about the nation. It could also be rephrased so that if you have statistics between an instance and a class, then the statistics goes in the instance. What if you turn it around, and you have statistics between a class and a set of instances, then it isn't obvious where the statistics goes. Jeblad (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@CBSBot, Jeblad: well, whether the Commons tabular format is sufficient or not, it's the only alternative option we have at the moment. The wikidata software cannot handle more than a few thousand statements on an item at present (the user interface becomes essentially unusable at that point) so no, it would not be a good idea to have 100,000+ statements on Netherlands (Q55). ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Information On Donating Data/Information

Hello everyone, i am brand new to Wiki data and i work for a health organization where we fund research in various areas of health, and we feel strongly about creating an open access policy where information and data that has been collected through our grantees research can be used for all to share and help contribute in the spreading of sound knowledge and science. i have spoken to several other Wiki editors and what not and i am getting great feedback and i want to continue in gathering as much information as i can before moving forward in a respectful manner. my email is enabled so please feel free to email me. Again i just want information on how to donate data and what data would work the best here and i hope our services at my foundation can help. thanks again DaP87 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Never fun to find that a bot does something wrong, but the assumption PreferentialBot does creates problems. It assumes current state to be preferred, but this neglects the history (the past) of the claim. That is it enforces interpretation of the claim in a specific context. This is not a problem for Wikipedia-projects that focuses on infoboxes with current content (what it is now), but it poses a problem for those projects that has infoboxes with complete histories (how it were back then). Rephrased you may say that what's preferred depends on expectations about the infobox, but this is a slight simplification.

To reiterate; the error is the assumption that current is the same as preferred, which is not a general truth. In fact, preferred can be harder to get right than deprecated. The solution is either to stop the bot or to stop reusing the preferred rank while building the infoboxes for the client articles. Jeblad (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One question on this. Does the bot create the problem, or is it only showing the problem in more items? To me it feels the latter is the real issue, and then the bot isn't the solution. Edoderoo (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is general, and as far as I know it can't be properly solved. You can rephrase it as preferred to be some extreme value in some dimension, but there can always be some other use case with other extreme values in some other dimensions. Jeblad (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The bot doesn't do that for all properties, only for the ones where this is thought to be useful. For infoboxes that should display any non-deprecated statements, one just needs to select differently. --- Jura 09:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The infoboxes are just an example, and the problem is even worse for content templates. I have just posted a warning at nowiki about using "best" statements, as they are now randomly broken. Jeblad (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have samples of statements that you consider broken? --- Jura 09:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Q641600 still exists, so the ranked statement gives the answer to the question "how many members does it have". Once it's desolved, I'd argue that the most recent value shouldn't have that rank. There are few cases were I don't think preferred rank is helpful, but here it seems helpful. --- Jura 11:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You give yourself a problem, how to formulate a question to get a specific answer, and find a question, but that isn't the only valid question and thus the solution isn't universally valid. The proper question is given by the context on the client, not carefully chosen by the answer on the repo. The only time preferred makes sense is when all ordering (instantiations) over all valid domains leads to preferred being the valid choice, or at least for the interesting domains. Note that unordered is also an ordering, as is ascending and descending order, so the only case where preferred makes sense is for a truly unordered set. Jeblad (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Which question(s) would it answer incorrectly? --- Jura 12:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Any question involving for example the history will be wrong. (Second sentence in the opening post: It assumes current state to be preferred, but this neglects the history (the past) of the claim.) Jeblad (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly how "preferred" is supposed to be used? From Help:Ranking: "The preferred rank is assigned to the most current statement or statements that best represent consensus (be it scientific consensus or the Wikidata community consensus)." Ghouston (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the core of the problem, the current value isn't necessarily preferred, and it isn't necessarily any consensus between projects on what is best. As I said back in 2012, preferred should be abandoned, it creates a lot of problems as it implies non-formal rules that isn't shared by the clients. Jeblad (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you see Help:Sources as a consensus? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Lua data access allows to retrieve either best or valid statements, the API and SPARQL allow retrieval of ranks. Whatever data consumer wants to get not only current, but also historical information has all the means in their hands to do that. --Marsupium (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the bot is your problem. It uses the concept as it's supposed to be used according to Help:Sources.

The problem comes from the "preferred" rank being used to mark two distinct things. On the one hand it marks that a certain datum is more trustworthy than others and on the other hand it marks with datum is current. One way to solve this would be to add an additional rank of "current&preferred". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The bot does not use the sources at all, and even if it did use them it can't say anyhing about the trustworthyness of individual sources unless it has a lot more information than what is available on this project. It is also quite easy to verify that it changes unsourced claims. The present rank-solution is really a two-dimensional thingy with six valid positions, where two normal values are merged, and two other positions are neglected, leaving three positions. Adding a third dimension isn't going to simplify the problem at all. (Note that current is temporally close on a time scale, with near as spatial scales as one other alternative. What about similar in shape?) Jeblad (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Typography and alphabets

Do we have any standards about representing typography and alphabets and/or any WikiProject that would have that in its scope? - Jmabel (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chris.urs-o: This sounds like a comment from the blocked user Tobias Conradi (who is very hard to block by IP address). Nevertheless you (or the Mineralogy wikiproject) need to make a decision on whether mineral (Q7946) is a metaclass like chemical compound, or not. Chemicals are generally a bit of a mess - particularly proteins and other biological chemicals. But if you look at mineral (Q7946) right now, it's a subclass of chemical compound (Q11173) which is a metaclass but also of solid (Q11438) which (through the subclass tree) seems to be a subclass of concrete object (Q4406616), whose instances should be real physical objects and not classes of objects. So one of those two seems wrong, and which of them is removed would determine whether P31 is the right relation or not for specific types of minerals to mineral (Q7946). I would tend to favor using subclass of (P279) in this cases, with perhaps a "variety of mineral" class for the P31 relations, but I'm not an expert in this area. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A query and some quickstatements will do 4k edits ... would take ~5 minutes or so to set it up, after which quickstatements does the grunt work ... if there is a decision on & specification of the proposed pattern of change. There are any number of people on this board with the abiity to do this, and/or to take you through the process, Chris.urs-o. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I think that mineral (Q7946) should be used for mineral species (items with chemical formula property), but the relation should be subclass of (P279). To me it seems that Help:Basic membership properties is quite clear on that. Mineral sample is "an individual or a single thing" (here real physical objects), mineral species is not. 90.191.81.65 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Does not seem to work. A valid mineral species is a subclass of a mineral group. Create item 'valid mineral species'?

After a property creator has been inactive for a year, not creating properties and not participating in property proposal discussions, they might be asked by any member of the community if they want to continue holding the right. At this point they will have the opportunity to be active again, or lose temporarily the property creator rights until they decide to apply again to the right, either through the standard process or through the fast process if it is within 6 months of their last logged action (see below).

Property creator access can also be removed due to voluntary resignation of the property creator. Property creators wishing to resign their access may request removal at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. If the Property creator wishes to regain their access after a voluntary resign, it can be requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard within 6 months of their last logged action in line with the inactivity policy.

I'm alright with the first and last paragraphs, but oppose the vote language in the second. Rights should only be removed in cases where there is consensus, not merely on the basis of a 50/50 'vote'. I would also add the following language: "In any case in which the holder has expressed their desire to retain the property creator right, inactivity alone shall not be cause for removal of said right." There is zero harm in someone only using their PC right sparingly. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: That vote paragraph is taken from Wikidata:Administrators#Losing_adminship. If you are not ok with it, we should change it for admins too. I agree that consensus should be more important than a vote. Any specific idea about how we should put that into words? I also agree that the PC right might be used sparingly, but I feel that a year without creating any property and not commenting on property proposals should be enough for the community to consider that this person might have lost interest or maybe doesn't have the time to work with properties. Also bear in mind that if someone loses their PC right they are neither being kicked out of the project, nor prevented of applying for the right again at a later date.--Micru (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Micru: PC rights are different from the far more ranging administrators rights. There is no reason adminship rules should have to follow property creator guidelines. As for how to word it, simply replace the word "vote" with "discussion", and the "with at least 50%..." part with "upon consensus". My basic point is this, if the person says let me keep it, then done, they get to keep it (unless they have abused it somehow). If they really have gone inactive and have no desire to retain that role, then sure of course they can be removed from the rolls. What no one has been able to explain is what the harm is of someone having the PC right but only using it sparingly (including once every couple of years). Just because a property regarding their area of expertise only comes up infrequently, what value is there in having them have to re-apply each time? If the stated goal is to increase participation in property creation discussions, removing people's PC rights while they aren't looking and forcing them to re-apply won't help. Is there any actual case where someone having the PC right but not using it has caused a problem and thus justifies this effort in the first place, or are we just writing law to solve a hypothetical? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: I have modified the text above according to your suggestion (I hope other people are ok with the change). Regarding "what the harm is of someone having the PC right but only using it sparingly", I will try to explain the best I can my point of view on the topic: for me the collection of properties that we have is like a language, we use it to express things about the world, and like all languages somehow it is quite consistent (even more than most languages I would say). Creating a new property is like expanding the language, and I believe that in order to expand it you have to be familiar with what already exists, at least in your domain. I admit that properties now should be more domain specific, and that is problematic, because we don't have any way for property creators to specify which domain they want to oversee, nor users have the way to ping any specific property creator to review their proposal once it has been discussed. So we end up in a situation where all property creators are sort of watching all property proposal pages, and that is quite overwhelming for a single individual if they care about the whole process, as I do. My concern is, are all property creators really pulling their weight and solving complex discussions? Or are they left to die with nobody caring about them? Right now we have many proposals that have been open for more than 30 days, and some of them are still open even if they didn't have any comment for more than 2 months. This is in my view a failure from the community, because when it takes so long then the proposer maybe has lost interest by the time the property is created, so it is left unused, creating even more work (as @Jura1: once pointed out to me). For me it is stressful because it makes me lose the motivation to work on them if I am the only one solving these stalled situations. Sometimes when we had a big backlog I worked in bursts of activity to reduce it, but it doesn't address any issue, as then even more proposals are launched, and then the cycle begins again. What I would like to have is a list of people I can count on because they care about properties, and with whom I can discuss issues about property creation, like who takes care of what, or which reviewing processes we use to avoid pissing people off (as I have sometimes because I didn't have better ways of doing things). So for me those are the biggest issues, I don't mind so much if a property creator doesn't create a property in 10 years while he or she (is there any female PC btw?) maintains informed, cares about the process, and assists other PC. I think the first step is to know who is in, and for me to know if a person is in or not, it is not a matter of "expressing interest" because then the PC right becomes just another hat to collect, but in actually "showing interest" by doing something relevant in the domain they care about (be it direct creation, or discussing processes), and for me 1 year without not even commenting any property proposal doesn't show much interest from their side... Once said that, I also believe that PC should create properties only for a Wikiproject, because I think that the maintenance of the property, and the community-capacity to know how many properties can be maintained, can only be assessed by those who are interested in said properties, but I believe that is a matter for a future discussion.--Micru (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Micru: The change looks good. I actually see where you are going at and I agree with you, it gets overwhelming and I am myself guilty of giving up at times in the face of the volume. I do try and respond if I am pinged on something, though if I don't have constructive input, I usually prefer to remain silent versus a generic support or oppose 'vote'. I occasionally browse the list of proposals in full, but as you mentioned there a lot for which I don't have any real input. I do think that a good ecosystem of properties created and curated by an engaged community would be ideal. I am all for anything that brings this about. One of the problems with a smaller number of people participating is that proposals need to remain longer in order to get sufficient discussion and ensure that input has been received. This exacerbates the problem of folks proposing properties, then giving up on them ever getting approved, and when they finally are created, having moved on to other things, leaving the property underutilized. I would like to see a more streamlined process for proposals that are more-or-less clear. Especially for authority control, an experience PC can look at an authority control property and pretty quickly gauge whether or not it is appropriate, and if so, how to set up the property with proper constraints and formatter, etc. As far as I am concerned, this should be something that can be done immediately by a PC if it meets certain criteria, which would both reduce backlog and the imposing volume of proposals as well as improve the use of the property by rapidly putting it in the hands of the community to use. To that end, I think we should perhaps have a select group of PCs that are even more actively engaged--a sort of property swat team. This is getting afield of the original issue, some of this is probably better discussed elsewhere. As for this proposal, I'm fine with the rewording, though I would still like to see something stating that a PC can not have their rights removed over their objections so long as there is no case of them abusing that right (my proposed wording is above). Add that simple protection and I can support this fully. As for other ways to improve the property ecosystem, consider me an ally and let's discuss some ideas. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: I don't understand why you want that PCs can keep they right even if they do not participate. Can you please explain your reasoning? --Micru (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Micru: I've explained it multiple times in these threads. Let me add that just because one does not meet your narrow definition of 'participation' (as written in your proposed language) does not mean that they are not participating. It went unanswered before, but is there a real world case where we need this new rule, and in particular is there a real world case where we need the ability to remove the property creator right from a user who has not abused the right and wishes to retain it? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Micru: I'm not the one seeking to create a limited definition of participation, that's what this proposal does above. Your answer from that previous thread seems to indicate that you want the list of property creators to be something it is not currently. So my suggestion is that instead of creating a lot of strife taking peoples' rights away, create a new list that meets your more stringent requirements. You are welcome to create a swat team of go-to folks if you want, but there is no need to punish the rest of the people who don't want to dance to that tune. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: You say that my definition of participation is limited, but what is your definition of participation?--Micru (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a good reason to have a discussion about such a policy change in the Project Chat instead of creating a RfC? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Yes, there is one, I'm quite disappointed with the RFC process here on Wikidata where the discussions stay open for too long and no effort is done to reach a reasonable conclusion before the conversation stales. Besides from my side I consider that this thread satisfies my limited time constraints, but of course if you feel that you need to talk more about this, you are free to start a RfC.--Micru (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I Oppose the proposal in the current form on the project chat, as I don't think this is the appropriate venue for policy changes that take away the rights of people, especially with the amount of participation that this thread got. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose There is no need for this proposal. Taking away user rights will not increase participation. There is no harm in allowing users to retain the property creator right even if inactive. I also agree with ChristianK1 that this is probably not the right place for this proposal. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the purpose of Wikidata in linking is to connect pages on the same topic, not to force Wikipedias to re-compose their pages on Wikidata-selected topics. There are some users who try to place sitelinks so as to give Wikipedia pages the exposure they desire rather than in the item where the concepts is dealt with, but fortunately they are the exception. This means that if there is a single Wikipedia that has separate pages on related topics, Wikidata needs to have separate items.

"Taxonomy" and "biological classification" are indeed related topics, but they are not necessarily the same concept. There is no reason why there should not be separate items, although exact placement of sitelinks may not be easy.

The idea of moving sitelinks from "d:Q8269924 (taxonomy, science of finding, describing, defining and naming groups of biological organisms)" to the unrelated "d:Q7211 (taxonomy, classification of things or concepts)" just to make things look neater is really abhorrent. These are completely different concepts and should be kept separate, in any event. - Brya (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, take care with JakobVoss as this user classified dozens, maybe hundreds, of ID systems as instanceOf ID. [17] BFO has been mentioned here to exactly educate people against these unilateral talk-ignoring misclassifications. 2.245.10.35 23:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

As there is disagreement on how to model this, I'll hold off until others have commented, and there is a clear consensus on the prefered model. FWIW, I would use "instance of ontology". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support <instance of> ontology. These are clearly individually named ontologies, not types or categpries of ontologies. - PKM (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Right: 'instance' it is. All done; see the query below. A few already existed, so watch out for possible duplicates, if I missed any.

Quick Statements not creating items

Hi, today I'm trying to create some items through Quick Statements, but it is stuck forever in "running". Anyone know what is the problem? Ederporto (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In QS2, this may indicate a bug in the syntax - QS1 would skip the error but QS2 gets hung up on it. Could you post an example of what you're trying to create? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I also have problem with adding statements. It is stuck. For example, Q4827920 P1082 47 Xaris333 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick Statements is not working for me either. User:Magnus Manske is that something you can restore? --Jarekt (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Announcing derivedstatements.js

For many items Wikidata has more information than can be seen on the item page. For example on Whitcomb L. Judson (Q731876) you see that he is an inventor but you don't see his invention.
That's because discoverer or inventor (P61) only links from the invention to the inventor and not the other way round. To solve this general problem that statements are only displayed in one way I've written the script derivedstatements.js. The script adds at the end of all item pages a new button to load inverse statements.

You can install the script by adding to Special:MyPage/common.js the following line:
importScript( 'User:Pasleim/derivedstatements.js' ); // [[User:Pasleim/derivedstatements.js]]
--Pasleim (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, simply superb. This is a feature that should have been in native WD for a long time. You even thought of getting labels from inverse properties! Thanks! -- LaddΩchat ;) 00:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be expecting that there is a language wikipedia category associated with each instance of an executive body, and that there is a wikidata item for the wikipedia category, and that you'll use P910 to point from the instance of executive body item to the category item, as for example Cabinet of Israel (Q2578249) does to no label (Q10092812). I'm not convinced that the expectations of the constraint will always be delivered by language wikipedias. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am using executive body (P208) to Communal Council items (villages). We will never have a category to any Wikipedia.

Then I wouldn't worry too much about the constraint. Not sure if another more appropriate property exists than P208, or if P208 is just really badly defined & constrained. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the constraint as it doesn't make sense anymore (it might have made sense in the early days of Wikidata). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

City as an administrative territorial entity and sister city

Is a city "a territorial entity for administration purposes, with or without its own local government" I think this is wrong. Municipality is
subclass of political territorial entity (Q1048835), not the city. Sometimes are the same, so we have one item. Sometimes are not the same:

Second example: Cyprus is divided to 6 district (1st administrative level). Each district have municipalites and communal councils (villages) (2nd administrative level). Cities are not administrative territorial entity. Each city have many municipalities.

The administrative territorial entity in that case are (by administrative level):

3) Limassol Municipality (Q28870916) (there are more 5 municipalities and 106 communal councils in the district). The 6 municipalities are forming the city (more or less). But the city of Limassol Limassol (Q185632) is not an administrative territorial entity.

I have these thoughts because of twinned administrative body (P190). Each municipality or community (the authorities of them) make an agreement with a twin municipality or a twin community. Not the city each self. But this, is not for all cases. In some cases, in some countries, "all city=one municipality".

You are right, the term "city" has two meanings - one is the human settlement in a purely geographic sense, the other is the political administrative unit. In Wikipedia and thus also here, whenever possible the two meanings are clustered together - simply because in most cases they are practically identical. This is one of problems with the import from geonames via the Cebuano Wikipedia - in geonames the "human settlement" and "political unit" are always separated, which created a lot of duplicate items here. And thus its right that for the sister city property it should be limited to political units, but not only local governments - in Thailand also provinces have done such partnerships. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is one of several instances where ceb.wp is causing problems WMF-wide. What they are doing is a nuisance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It can also be tricky when there's a distinction between an administrative body and the territory administered by that body. Sometimes there are two entities in Wikidata, sometimes only one (usually for the territory). A territory itself doesn't really have administrative powers, it's the thing that's administered. Ghouston (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that there is always a distinction between an administrative body and the territory administered by that body, according to the point of view of each discipline. Are the boundaries of the city up to the last buildings, or at the boundaries of the administrative body? (which may include surrounding farmlands, forests, lakes...) Is the population living in the city, or living at the area administered by the local administrative body (so, a similar question would be "where in which we put the population, since the censuses reference the population by administrative bodies and not by cities, towns, and villages"). Going a level up, are the wars or treaties between countries or between the governments of the countries?

The point is that municipalities or any administrative entity are not self-sufficient. The municipalities represent their city, but the boundaries of a municipality and a city are never identical if we see it positively (for example, if we think the city extends to the last houses). There are different types of settlements from a human geography point of view, there are various relations between the city center and the suburbs (or if one wants to see it administratively, the central municipality and the regional ones), the surrounding settlements even when they are in a different administrative unit have a direct connection with the city, etc... In essence, the institution is referred to as such; between "cities" and not municipalities. Sometimes linguistic or formal conventions create ambiguities, but it is natural (self-evident) that in order for twinning to take place that would need action from their representatives (the municipalities) -like in treaties between countries, signed by their governments.

If it is considered correct that eg. if it is not Kavala (Q187352) who was twinned with Nuremberg (Q2090), then it should also apply to the second part: then it would be Municipality of Kavala (Q12282294) and the "Municipality of Nuremberg" (no item).
Are not Thessaloniki (Q17151) and Melbourne (Q3141), but the Municipality of Thessaloniki (Q6627746) and the City of Melbourne (Q1919098)? (only the center, with 3% of the city's population) According to formalities, yes. These are the institutions that have signed the co-operation agreements. On the other hand, however, we see that the Municipalities themselves report twinning with other cities, not with other municipalities. That is humanistically correct, as the structure and culture of cities are generally dependent on its center, substantially or even as symbols. Thessaloniki and Melbourne where twinned because more than 152000 Greeks live in Melbourne. A number much larger than the population of the whole "City of Melbourne". It is obvious that in many cases the political administrative unit of the city centre or the greater area acts on behalf of the city. These actions may be symbolic or substantial but the do represent the city. Another example would be the twinning of New York City (Q60) and London (Q84). London is not the administrative body, Greater London (Q23306) is. Sticking with unecessary formalism, would mean that we would turn "twinned cities" to "twinned administrative bodies". -Geraki (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, for the U.S. we have city of the United States (Q1093829) for a "city" in the legal/administrative sense; in many states, this can apply to some small settled places that are by no means a city (Q515). I suspect something parallel applies in other countries. - Jmabel (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Any twinning twinned administrative body (P190) is between administrative entities. So this must be reflected in the Wikidata items of such entities (municipalities or other) and not in the "cities" which might be a much different thing.

The main issue is that items about words are not supposed in the Q namespace in Wikidata but in the newly created Lexeme/Form namespaces. Maybe the solution is to create a proper item for 'mula' in those namespaces and then add the link from sv-wiki to the newly created item and delete mula (Q10590035). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: So does that mean that Wikipedia articles about words shouldn't have corresponding Wikidata items, the way all other articles (even disambiguations) should? That seems a bit awkward. - Jmabel (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Why do you think it's awkward to to link such articles to a lexeme or sense instead of an item in the Q-namespace? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I think it's awkward either to ask Wikipedians who may know almost nothing about Commons to have to do things differently for a class of articles that have no special distinction within the site they are familiar with, or to ask a bot to be able to make a distinction such as that the article "African American" is about an ethnic group, but the article "Negro" is about a word. - Jmabel (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Same item with a property

Is there a constrain for using, with a property, only an item just one time? I mean, for a property, you can add two times the same item. Xaris333 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Not that. A property of one item can has many values, sometimes the values are the same. I am asking if there is a constrain for using the same value more than one time, in the same item. Xaris333 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your description is ambiguous and bold characters are not likely to help. Can you give examples of item states where the constraint would trigger a violation, and examples of item states where the constraint would be satisfied? − Pintoch (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ι can add this statement more than one time. Q8682#P1344. If I have 100 or 200 values to a property, It would be helpful to have a constrain showing that the value is already added. Xaris333 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing this page

When I click the [Edit] link next to a second-level head on this page, the editor is opening a different section. Can someone look into this? Thanks! - PKM (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@PKM: This often happen when a section has been added or deleted, between you fetching the page and starting to edit it. Try refreshing the page in your browser, then editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

To add my 2cents, formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) is specific for patterns for RDF resources URIs and so imho could not be use to link to XML documents. It would be very interesting to create a new URI formatter that would be named something "URI pattern for machine-readable representation" that would link to JSON/XML/turtle... description of the connected entities. It would be also useful in the RDF use case when the resource URIs do not properly redirect to an RDf document describing the resource when an RDF content type is requested. Tpt (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Registration required

Links using the property Deezer artist ID (P2722) only work if a person has an account and is logged in. Do we have some means to mark such properties and sites that require users to have an account to use their links? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should at least be mentioned in the property description. --- Jura 09:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Language agnostic templates for politicians

Hoi, I need help for the creation of a template to be used in multiple Wikipedias in African languages. There are lists of many national politicians, the languages where the same lists exist are en sw ts yo and zu Wikipedia.

As you can see on the example lists, do not expect there to be much (technical) local support; things like columns are often not supported. My objective is to show that once support exists for showing basic information and links do exists showing basis related information it becomes easier to convince high schools to flesh out the lists and templates and make them into more complete articles. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Different versions of source document

I have created item NRHP nomination: WCAU Studios (Q54987601) describing a particular document for use as a source. Two online, official outlets (the U.S. National Archives and the Pennsylvania state authorities) host PDFs purporting to be that document. However the two PDFs are significantly different: one of the PDFs (at the Archives) appears to be the final version of the document, while the other (PA) appears to be an earlier draft.

So, how should I present this situation in the full work available at (P953) statement(s)? As of right now, I've listed both links with the PA link deprecated. Is there a qualifier I can attach to the PA link to describe the situation? Or should I just use the Archives link and remove the PA link? Or is there a different way to approach the situation? — Ipoellet (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Soup Kitchen as Peruvian cultural monument?

There was a bunch of stuff in soup kitchen (Q2142654) about a Peruvian cultural monument. I removed it just now, but perhaps it would be better split into a new item. I couldn't figure out what was going on with it, but others more familiar with the cultural databases might. Daask (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The Peruvian stuff was added in 2017-11 by User:André Costa (WMSE)'s bot. I suppose it got the item confused with something, the claims should probably go somewhere else. Ghouston (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Daask, Ghouston: This was due to an error on es.wiki, now corrected. We added some logic to spot these during the import but sadly a few snuck through. Thanks for spotting it and fixing it here. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Argo

Argo (Q647931) has a coordinate location (P625) referenced from the Danish Wikipedia. I don't see how this could have an associated geographic location, but I don't read Danish well enough to assure myself to the contrary. Looks to me like User:Steenthbot added it 4 years ago. Anyone understand what's going on here? - Jmabel (talk)

I can't read Danish either, but I do see a coordinate template on the Danish article. I've read the Dutch article and that makes me wonder too why there is a coordinate location (P625) statement on the item and the template on the Danish article. Maybe Steenth can explain it (or another user that can read Danish, like Fnielsen). Mbch331 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of letter in language

Hi, I would like to add the fact that a certain letter can be pronounced as a specific phoneme in a specific language; for instance, that letter A (Q9659) can be pronounced as phoneme near-open front unrounded vowel (Q740768) in language English (Q1860). What is the correct way to state this? I wasn't able to find existing statements for this. Thanks! --A3nm (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@A3nm: There is IPA transcription (P898), although that might not be exactly what you're looking for. There doesn't appear to be a property for assigning phonemes to letters yet; maybe you could propose one for creation. Jc86035 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Thanks! Yeah, IPA transcription (P898) isn't really it. Not sure I'll have the time to propose the creation of a property right now, but thanks for suggesting! --A3nm (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge pages

Can no label (Q27921656) and platform economy (Q50867887) be merged? Both are about the "economic and social activity facilitated by platforms": the former focuses on the economic actor while the latter covers the economic activity. That's more a difference of form than substance though.
Freedatum (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

How to add to an existing item the label in a new language?

I tried with the gadget "Labels List" and in the end got a message "API error".
Then I tried with the Beta version "List of Headers". In the end I got:
✘ Error :
(permissiondenied) You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action.
Tue Jun 19 2018 23:32:07 GMT+0300 (FLE Daylight Time)

It is true that on this page (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4233718) there is a padlock saying "this page has been semi-protected".
Can this be the reason for the above message or something else?

@Pigsonthewing: I usually agree with you on most things, but in this case I think you are wrong. Look at the en-wiki article. It is not a "list article" or anything like. It is a prose overview of medical facilities in Seattle; it doesn't even contain a list. - Jmabel (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, there's one list-like paragraph in the middle (I didn't notice that at a quick scan) but "First Hill is widely known as 'Pill Hill' for its concentration of hospitals and other medical offices. In addition to being the current home of Harborview, Swedish, and Virginia Mason, it is also the former location of Maynard, Seattle General, and Doctors Hospitals (all of which merged into Swedish) and Cabrini Hospital," and "In 1974, a 60 Minutes story on the success of the then four-year-old Medic One paramedic system called Seattle 'the best place in the world to have a heart attack.' Some accounts report that Puyallup, a city south of Seattle, was the first place west of the Mississippi River to have 911 emergency telephone service,' hardly seem like list content to me. Still, if en-wiki counts it as a list, I guess that suffices. - Jmabel (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Bot question

This is from a long time ago, so maybe it's something long since fixed, but how did someone born in Nebraska and who made her career mainly in Seattle get designated as a "British artist"? - Jmabel (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It could have an end date on the street location. The location could also be set to the storage location, if known. Otherwise, it's just located (presumably) in the administrative district, somewhere. Ghouston (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias by number of properties they use

Is there a list of Wikipedias by number of properties they use? E.g. on German Wikipedia someone claimed that "Wikidata is no source for Wikipedia." Is that true if it would mean that no value is included in that article names space in dewiki? Are there more Wikipedias like that? 85.180.90.183 19:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. In what sense does a Wikipedia "use" a [Wikidata, I presume] property? What exactly is the relation between using a property and accepting Wikidata as a [presumably citable] source [or do you mean something else]? The next sentence I don't follow at all: what does it mean for a [Wikidata] value to be "included in article name space"? For that matter, what do you mean by "value"? A Statement (Q-item + property + value) or something else? And what do you mean by "included": explicitly present, driving content via a template, or something else? And then "like that" in what way: having some contributor who asserts that Wikidata isn't a valid source, or what?? Very confusuing; you may need something two or three times this long to express what you actually mean to ask, an if there is a different language where you can express it more clearly (e.g. German), feel free. - Jmabel (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are some statistics about Wikidata usage in Wikipedia, see grafana. But they are not very fine graded, for example they do not distiguish between statements which are used to create maintenance categories and statements which are displayed. There is also Category:Templates using data from Wikidata (Q11985372) which lists some templates that use data from Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Park designed by...

Right now, constraints on designed by (P287) and movement (P135) have a type constraint that gives a warning if used on instances of urban park (Q22746). Most urban parks are works of landscape design, and so have a designer; some are clearly identified with a movement. For example:

I think the constraint should be altered to consider these statements appropriate, but I'm not sure how best to do this. Perhaps garden (Q1107656) (of which Q22746 is a subclass) should be considered a subclass of creative work (Q17537576)? That would solve it, I believe- Jmabel (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A proposed course of action for dealing with cebwiki/svwiki geographic duplicates

A series of deletion requests by @Joseagush:, my merging of Wikidata items for French communes, and seeing @Exec8: performing full-content replacements recently on cebwiki made me wonder if we needed a codified procedure for dealing with geographic duplicates from cebwiki/svwiki. As a result I proposed the following in response to the aforementioned deletion requests (and I hope @Lsj: and other Wikidata admins can opine on this as well):

Visit the GeoNames pages for the two Wikidata items (linked from the GeoNames ID on both Wikidata items). Verify that the two GeoNames items actually do refer to the exact same place down to the same level of administrative division1.

Open a GeoNames account if you do not have one already. Move any appropriate information from the less accurate2 GeoNames item into the more accurate GeoNames item and delete the less accurate GeoNames item (I don't recall offhand if a merge capability exists there).

Go to cebwiki and svwiki and replace the entire content of the page corresponding to the less accurate GeoNames item with "#REDIRECT [[{name}]]" (where "{name}" should of course be substituted with the name of the page on that wiki corresponding to the more accurate GeoNames item).

Delete the sitelinks for the page corresponding to the less accurate GeoNames item on those sitelinks' associated Wikidata item, delete the statement for that Wikidata item's GeoNames ID, and merge that Wikidata item with the more accurate GeoNames item's Wikidata item.

Keep in mind that occasionally the administrative excludes the settlement its named after for example Q1002828 is not in Q21347409. There should still be 2 items then, I don't know if France has any like this though. Lucywood (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine. No doubt there are some real duplicates and some erroneous duplicates. Abductive (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If you like to proceed that way, this is fine for me. I'm not sure it scales though, but I'd love to see if it did. I don't think it's suitable as a general suggestion on how to proceed to other contributors:

Wikidata should be editable without creating accounts at other Wikimedia websites or third party websites.

There are couple of possible approaches that have been identified in earlier discussions of the problem. In the meantime, I suppose most people just try to skip cebwiki/svwiki only items. --- Jura 07:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the GeoNames datas aren't wrong, the wrong is that Lsj himself doesn't know how to insert data links to the existing items (or especially don't know how to find existing articles to add em). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

To my experience, we have several problems:

duplication of administrative subdivision and populated places - something done by geonames, but (usually) not by Wikipedias. In some cases this is handy, e.g. when a municipality consists of several distinct populated places, then Wikipedia (usually) omits the one named same-named as the municipality.

Items imported by bot, but without the coordinates, thus making it even more difficult to spot the duplication.

Each of these points need different action, as in principle the geonames database isn't that bad as it seems from the recurring discussions here. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Death in episode number...

How to better model that a character was killed in specific episode/book/film of series? I use manner of death (P1196) with qualifierdescribed by source (P1343). Or better as reference? Or some other property? And how to distinguish from the case when a death of the character was described in episode (as a flashback, not a main storyline)? --Infovarius (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Infovarius, in general you can use stated in (P248) as a reference to indicate the work where a fictional event is mentioned (both as part of the main storyline and as part of a (in-narrative true) story within this work).

Sometimes present in work (P1441) is used as a qualifier to express that a certain event takes places in a certain work, but mostly to restrict in-narrative facts to a certain story-world (e.g. if Dracula has a son in one work but not in others). So this one would also not be useful to emphasize that a certain event takes place in the main storyline of the work.

Try the prototype of the new termbox on mobile

Hello all,

As a next step of the termbox project, following the first feedback loop about the termbox, the Wikidata team developed a first prototype of the termbox on mobile. We would love to have your feedback on it. Please have a look at the information on this page and give us feedback on the talk page. Thanks! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: Ideally because it isn't? Do you also know the answer to my continent related question here? --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not limited to the continent property. There are also properties like located in time zone (P421) or official language (P37) added to every village, even they are same all up the hierarchy to the country. As there is nothing like a calculated statement within Wikidata (not sure about what's possible with Lua in Infoboxes) we probably have to live with the redundancy. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK mandatory qualifier requirements are in the property domain, and so we find P166 has a property constraint in the form of a mandatory qualifier constraint requirement for P585. Presumably the thinking is that all awards must have a temporal property. Is there anything especial about Q2085100 over and above this normal expectation? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No nothing special With Q2085100, just chosen as an example. The answer that in general the requirement are in the property is fine with me. Maybe I just can use Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) saying This item must have P585 as qualifier. Pmt (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't have item based mandatory qualifiers. In this case I also don't see why one would be warrented as it would effectively say: "There are no serious sources that mention that a person received this award but that don't say when they received it" ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Award received" has a constraint "Point in time". So I do not understand the issue. Also a constraint does not mean that we always know the associated date. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

is part of a particular cuisine

How do I indicate that a dish or an ingredient is part of a particular cuisine? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There's also indigenous to (P2341) if you're associating the dish to a specific people, location or culture. - PKM (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

part of (P361) seems to me to be a little awkward for things like this, because it gives a warning if you don't have the reciprocal has part (P527). It seems to me like we should have an alternative for part of (P361) that doesn't expect that sort of explicit reciprocation. - Jmabel (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the inverse can just be added to the cuisine item. But there has been a discussion about whether the inverse constraint should be required, and it was even deleted for a while but reinstated. Property_talk:P361#Removing_inverse_constraint. Ghouston (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Thank you. That's interesting; I hadn't envisaged use for the subject of the site as a whole. What about examples for individual page subjects? I also note that OBI uses https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q300518 ("https"; "wiki") while Apple uses http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q312 ("http"; "entity"). Am I correct in assuming that "https" and "entity" are preferred? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The Apple one is more "correct" because that is the URI of the concept that is also linked in the sidebar of any item.

I have not come across sites using it for individual page subjects but that doesn't mean much. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not use <owned by> here. Instead, I would make Seattle Public Library (Q7442157)<instance of>library system (Q28324850) and use <part of/has part> relations between the system and the branch libraries. However, <parent organization> seems perfectly fine since a library system is clearly an organization (and I would mark Seattle Public Library as a library system in either case). - PKM (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Elevation above sea level

The islands, obviously, have a minimum elevation of 0, and their highest point is the peak of Mount Constitution (Q6920229), at 734 metres. Is there some useful way to express that in San Juan Islands (Q1196315)? Because the current statement is like saying "part of this house is 34 cm off the ground." - Jmabel (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

For extended geographical entities this really makes no sense - then we need either a completely new datatype to encode a range of values, or with what is currently available could add the highest and lowest elevation with the qualifier applies to part (P518) set to highest point (Q3393392) or lowest point (Q35691103). Take a look of how I adjusted it in Aachen (Q1017), that way I think it makes sense, including to describe which place was chosen as the random median point within the entity. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ahoerstemeier: If that is the right way to do it, then there is a constraint that should be changed: right now, this gets a warning that "coordinate location is not a valid qualifier for elevation above sea level." - Jmabel (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that warning. The coordinates are IMHO useful, especially if the extreme points cannot become items to be linked with highest point (P610)/deepest point (P1589). Sometimes the highest point is a mountain peak, but especially the lowest point is often just a place along a river, or even a coast line. I have no idea if there is any recommended way to handle these, it's just what I came up with. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Should these categories be merged?

entertainment industry (Q19595701), leisure industry (Q6520325). Is there is distinction? If so, what is it? If there is a distinction, perhaps Q19595701 is intended to be slightly more specific? Perhaps tourism (Q49389) which I had recently made an instance of the former, is actually only an instance of the latter, being in some sense "leisure" but not perhaps what we mean by "entertainment"? But Q19595701 says it is a.k.a. "leisure industry". - Jmabel (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

can be improved on, since it currently gives a warning. Is there some distinct item for the tourist industry? - Jmabel (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

According to en:Leisure industry, "The leisure industry is the segment of business focused on recreation, entertainment, sports, and tourism", suggesting that entertainment is only one form of commercialized leisure. I think industries haven't been completely set up on Wikidata, it's mentioned at Wikidata:WikiProject Companies. Ghouston (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

tourism industry (Q11630521) seems to be intended as a "tourist industry" item. It'd be nice to match it to some code in whatever industrial classification scheme is preferred, but I get lost in the bureaucracy of such things. Ghouston (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

So is there some likely action step here? - Jmabel (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a template that links to both Wikipedia and Wikidata

Is there a template that provides icon links to Wikipedia + Wikidata? I.e. Similar to Template:Claim but with the Wikipedia Globe or "W" icon and Wikidata, instead of Reasonator and SQID. I'm sure I've seen that somewhere, but cannot find it.

E.g. I recall something that looked like: Foobar or Foobar

I'm specifically wondering if that (desired) template can be (or is already) used in translatable pages at metawiki and mediawikiwiki and commons when linking to article pages in the Wikipedias, but slightly improving upon the common case of just having a single Enwiki link (which often doesn't get translated).

Note: I do know how to make a template to match my demos above, I'm just hoping/believing that something already exists. Thanks! Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have merged them. However, there may be a purpose to having another item for the English translation referenced in the enwiki article (I note the ISBN numbers on frwiki and enwiki differ). ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah. But then you get "Seattle, United States of America" which is not how anyone writes a U.S. location: state is always included. At least for Seattle it's unambiguous, but imagine if it was "Springfield" or "Freeport". Do we maybe need some specific property for U.S. states so that we can end up with a saner result? Or should the template on Commons be specialized to handle U.S. differently and trace up from a U.S. municipality to a state as part of the place name? - Jmabel (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Several ways of skinning that cat; agree that the current output is suboptimal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The line in the infobox template beginning "location -->" needs to be modified so that P131 values are recursively displayed until a value that is instance of (P31)country (Q6256) (or something like that) is reached. Mahir256 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I wondered about (mis)using Series Ordinal to denote the preferred order for a set of P131 values; would be rather artificial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Since I updated Module:WikidataIB to use getAllStatements/getBestStatements instead of getEntity, it is obliged to use the entity-id (qid) for every call. As far as I am able to tell, all calls are now equivalent and arbitrary access is not expensive if it uses getAllStatements/getBestStatements. If I'm right about that, it would allow us to use far more complex chains of fetching information. I think I probably need to write a new function call that iterates through "located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)" until it finds no P131, then looks for a "short name (P1813)", failing that a label. That would give us Camlin Hotel, Seattle, King County, Washington, USA. I'll try to knock that up tomorrow and we can test it out. If anybody has a better algorithm, or a list of exceptions that can be programmatically implemented, I could use that instead. A list of entities to use as test cases wuld be handy as well. --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've created a basic function that returns the chain and started a discussion at c:Module talk:WikidataIB #Function to return location chain. Sorry for the cross-project discussion, but the module exists on Commons, not on Wikidata and I need it to demonstrate the function. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Anything I can do to facilitate experimenting with this on Commons? I'm an admin there. - Jmabel (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

About the empty Query namespace

Currently we have Query: namespace, along with its Query talk:, but both are having no pages.

As we now use WQS, I think both namespaces can be safety dropped, anyone oppose? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is something we might use in the future for automated list generation. If you don't mind, we should keep it for now :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Error message

Can someone look at Rem Cashow (Q43270605) and see why I am getting an error message for date of baptism, the math looks right to me. --RAN (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The minimum and maximum bounds for date of baptism have units (years), and apparently units are not to be used with minimum and maximum bounds. Perhaps this is why the calculation is failing? Mahir256 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am going to take the unit (year) off the constraint and see if the error message goes away. Ohh, I see, the unit is not coded in "difference within range constraint" it lies deeper in the calculation. Maybe someone more familiar should work on it. If it is coded deeper, then it may affect more calculations that I am not aware of, if I make a change. --RAN (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Mahir256, Andrew Gray: WikibaseQualityConstraints supports units on this constraint, and in fact requires them so that differences in years work properly, so please don’t remove them :) the problem here is that the constraint is the wrong way around: it says that the date of death should be 0 to 120 years before the date of baptism. You can fix this either by flipping the range (-120 to 0 years, but that’s difficult to understand for readers when they see a constraint violation) or by moving the constraint to date of death (P570) – if there is no date of baptism, it will not be reported as a violation (see phabricator:T185480). Everything I’m saying here applies only to WikibaseQualityConstraints, I’m not sure how KrBot handles this. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a tough one to figure out. --RAN (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a link resolver for URLs stored in Wikidata?

From a private website, I'd like to link to websites of various institutions. Example: I have a photo of the Louvre museum and would like to link to the Louvre's website. And why not use Wikidata's community-maintained database for those ever-changing URLs... So: is there a link I could use for "the highest-ranked URL of property P856 in Item Q19675" and that doesn't require additional clicks by my users (I guess it's no problem in SQPARQL, but that first gives a table, not the actual website I would like to link to)? Seems pretty straightforward, but I cannot find anything that does the trick. If someone chooses to program it, I would suggest to include a second option with a landing page that says "In 10 seconds, you are redirected you to the URL ... as stored in Wikidata item Q19675" or something similar. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

highway systems

gives a warning. I believe the statement is entirely valid and somewhere else we have either a too-rigorous constraint or bad modeling. I'd appreciate if someone more experienced in Wikidata than I would sort this out. - Jmabel (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Background: Q16159496 has a Korean-language label, 공증인; Q15479268 has the same label. The two items were merged in 2016, but that was reverted in February this year, by User:Andreasmperu. It's not clear why that was done. Q16159496's link to the ko.Wikipedia article 공증인 was removed last April by User:Ykhwong. That link is now on Q15479268. If anything changes, the merge should be redone; the item should not be deleted.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Cross Lang Conflicts"

Some editors may be interested in this discussion on the English Wikipedia, where Xinbenlv has demonstrated results from a partly closed-source system to find conflicts in data between Wikipedias. I asked him to post here but he has not yet, so I am linking to the original discussion. Please post comments there. Jc86035 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"individual aircraft"

I raised this question before, but as part of a recently-archived discussion of several different matters. This particular question was never answered, at least not to my satisfaction. Really, the only answer I had was an IP contributor telling me my question wasn't reasonable. I still believe it was.

Coming in as an experienced Wikimedian and database developer but relatively new to Wikidata, I would expect that no label (Q21051516) would be a class that is to be used for individual aircraft. Since it has no description, and it is not that, it is very hard for me to imagine what it is. - Jmabel (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pasleim: I was informed by several experienced users in the prior exchange that my interpretation was not how it should be used, and there is not a single individual aircraft that uses it as the target of instance of (P31). There had been a few; one result of the prior discussion is that those were removed. - Jmabel (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Some blocked user deleted the statements. Obviously they should be restored. --- Jura 05:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

correctness of statements: Independent whether no label (Q21051516) is used as value in statements, it is wrong to say that an individual aircraft is an instance of an aircraft. individual aircraft is neither a concrete object nor a meta-class, thus using instance of (P31) on no label (Q21051516) does not make sense. --Pasleim (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree on the second point. The first point might be theoretically correct, but fails at Wikidata. Given that all items using P31=aircraft are about aircraft models, it's clearly not working. There needs to be a way to reliably identify such items in Wikidata. --- Jura 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would one use P31 of no label (Q21051516) when a P31 of aircraft (Q11436) means exactly the same thing? Do we have any other classes of items where, instead of saying instance of the item class, we say instance of an individual item of the item class. We do not, as far as I know, have 'individual house', 'individual car', 'individual human', etc. Jura has not, afaik, explained why the item was put together. IIRC it seems to complement a wikipedia category, which category does seem to have a good excuse for its existence. But the fact that the cat exists & demands a corresponding wikidata entry, does not then demand that we take a non-standard approach for the P31 of individual aircraft. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We do use Q5 for all humans as using subclasses by countless other possible items aren't efficient (we could easily use P31=(fe)male). I don't think it matters what the actual label of Q21051516 is or if you use another item. --- Jura 12:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You were right about asking for adding a label, I was just wondering why it should be "family name". You can see how to do it in the picture. I have already added labels in all Latin script languages to the item. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone speak Hawaiian?

Over the last couple of weeks, I've seen a number of items created (like Naūaiala waūeika (Q55154369) or Raūaika eūwaika (Q55154370)) with Hawaiian sitelinks that all have the same problem: their English label is in Hawaiian, the English label is always "from by original" (???) and the only statement is instance of (P31)independent (Q2415493). Special:WhatLinksHere/Q2415493 gives a good overview. independent (Q2415493) itself doesn't have any statements, but the two sitelinks seem to describe politicians or members of parliament who are not members of a party. Google translate doesn't really help with Hawaiian - or at least the Hawaiian Wikipedia articles in question - but the articles seem to describe geographic objects or towns. Category:User haw is pretty much empty unfortunately, the only user listed hasn't been active in 5 years. Not really sure what to do with these items. --Kam Solusar (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Q220153

At Anundsjö church (Q220153) I added the Church of Sweden ID, and it gave me a warning. Church of Sweden ID is a database of parishes and church buildings. I added a constraint "church buildings of the Church of Sweden" at P5048, it previously was only allowed to contain parishes. I am still getting the warning, can someone see what I did wrong? --RAN (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Travis Pastrana and Cassandra Lee has been merged

Done Thanks for bringing this up. You can do it yourself by using "undo" and "restore" links in the history. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Should these be deleted?

Hi. We recently cleaned up a very messy template on enwiki. A number of redundant subpages were deleted (after merging to the main page). After deletion, I've noticed that those subpages have corresponding Wikidata items. Should these be deleted, or is it an accepted practice to leave them (as some have pages on other wikis):

@Rehman: We don't just delete template items because of enwiki deletions, there are still wikis that need them.

However, I suggest to monitor such items that named "Template:(foo/bar)/meta/(color/shortname...)", these should be speedy deleted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Liuxinyu970226. If I understand correctly, you mean Wikidata items which are for template subpages should be deleted? Rehman 09:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. If any of such items only have one sitelink, and you really can't find another possible link, you can RFD it. Because, as per WD:N states, If a link is a template, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks, and any of them must not be one of /doc, /XML, /meta, /sandbox, /testcases or /TemplateData subpages. Items for non-subpages can be created with 1 sitelink, but shouldn't be created in great numbers. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to properties, they don't map directly to natural language. Having a property that maps directly to the English word "for" wouldn't be good for modeling. A good way to look for what properties to use is to look at similar items that already exist and see what properties they use. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You have told the most right thing, I understood this today. Still to learn many things here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have sorted out my problem, it was about this page. I wanted the "distribution" statement to be like:

This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Allotments

How is allotment (Q8054653) intended to be used? I see that several instances of parks, etc. that are broken up into allotments are given as instances (P31) of allotment (Q8054653), but both the English and German descriptions of allotment (Q8054653) are of an individual allotment, not the allotment garden as a whole. Also, weirdly, we have

which only makes sense for the very specialized form of allotment gardens where people have casitas on their allotment, and which I would think would be a separate issue.

The particular places I want to use this are P-Patch (Q7116902), a system of about 100 allotment gardens in Seattle (I'm guessing that would be a subclass ifallotment (Q8054653) means an allotment garden rather than a single plot), and Marra Farm (Q6772773), much but not all of which is broken up into allotments under the P-Patch program. - Jmabel (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So I think the intention is that it is used for the garden as a whole ie an allotment (Q8054653) will contain a number of smaller parcels of land that an individual would grow plants on. Thus each individual P-Patch (Q7116902) would be an instance of allotment (Q8054653). I think perhaps the allotment description's use of the word plot is a bit mis-leading and could be changed to use the word area. WD doesn't have an item for the individual parcels or plots within an allotment. I suggest we create a new item (sub-class of allotment (Q8054653)) for the small parcel of land within an allotment, that the labels and description of allotment (Q8054653) are improved and that we include a different from (P1889) on each to make sure it is clear. Whether any allotment parcel should have it's own item would be up for debate on notability grounds. I don't think allotment should be a sub-class of hamlet, that i think is incorrect. Now, to add the to the mix, we also have the concept of the community garden which can be synonymous with allotment, but can also refer to an area of land that is gardened collectively rather than as individual parcels... Some of the items linked to allotment (Q8054653) could be gardens of this type JerryL2017 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I merged the first. The second could be merged in theory, but not in practice since there's an article for each name on nlwiki. Ghouston (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The second is not the same ship. If it really is, you need to hunt the nl-wiki community to merge the two articles there first. But I'm pretty sure it is not the same ship. Edoderoo (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the same ship, it was sold by the Netherlands to Belgium and renamed. Ghouston (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Definately the same ship. I don't have any experience in Wikidata, so I cannot give advice how to handle here. But I don't think it is wise to merge the articles in NL Wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Too hard, because there have some disambiguation pages under Template: namespace. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Given name same as family name

I believe we had a way to mark when someone had a given name the same as their family name, I may be wrong and we actually need one. We have "Hermann Julius Hermann" and his record listed Julius as his family name, which I fixed. The tag would somehow let the user and any bot know that this is not an error that was caused by a bad cut and paste. --RAN (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that on Wikidata no one can actually have a given name the same as their family name as the given and family name (although with the same label) will have different items. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: I see some of those are errors from cultures that use their family name first, and given name second. A bot grabbed one name from each language, see Csaba Antal (Q771656). I would get lectured about confusing family names and given names when I worked in Budapest. As a corollary do not call Emmental cheese "Swiss cheese" while working in Basel, Switzerland, you will get a lecture about the 12 distinct cheeses of Switzerland. --RAN (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

1) On an book items we must have only one value with title (P1476). And that title will be in the original language. Correct? Because I have see some books item with more than one value with this property.

2) How we will add the translated title in other languages? No property on the table.

I cannot speak to the question of a book - an edition - that has more than one title. My understanding of the approach to books is that we have first an item for a work, which might be the first edition of a book. And then we have discrete items for each (subsequent) edition of the book. So the foreign language translated book & title is an edition, which has its own item, in which the title is whatever is on its cover, and which points back to the work item using the 'edition of' property. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

But the first table has that note "These properties are for the first item that represents a book (FRBR work level). They are mainly meant to be used for items linked to Wikipedia pages." Not the first edition. For example, there is no isbn property. The second table is for Edition item properties. We create another item for the 1st edition. Xaris333 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, taking that point, does not the work / edition division sort out your second question? And if so, does your first question still need an answer (or was it mainly concerned with an other language title translation?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe yes. And of course we can use the label. For the first one, if the book have only one original title, I suppose we will add only the original language. Xaris333 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Something I've been finding with the books and periodicals in the BHL collection (Wikidata:WikiProject BHL) is that it would be quite useful to have a field where one could give a courtesy translation of the title.

Sometimes, for very well known works, eg War and Peace (Q161531) that translation might appear as the label for the item; and also as values for has edition (P747) But for lesser-known works (eg some of the taxonomy works and journals in the BHL, such as this list of works in Hungarian tinyurl.com/yasl4kgg), that may never have been translated, the label should probably be the original title (in eg Hungarian), and I think it would be inappropriate to put anything else in title (P1476), but it would useful to record/retrieve a translation somewhere. Jheald (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Micru: Nice! That should definitely be added to guidance on relevant WikiProject pages, that looks very useful indeed. (Though might make pages quite long, if translations start appearing in a very high number of languages -- is there an option to hide or collapse variants in more than n languages?) Jheald (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently, about 8000 items link to folders of the 20th century press archives (Q36948990), which comprise scanned press clippings, sometimes only a few, sometimes thousands of them. However, due to intellectual property restrictions, parts - or even all - of the clippings are not accessible on the web, but only on the premises of ZBW. I would like to update all the PM20 folder ID (P4293) links with qualifiers providing the amount of available documents, both online and in total. number of works (P3740) could be used for one of these numbers, but for the other one I found no fitting property.
I suppose the situation that of a total number of works only parts are accessible online, is not so uncommon. Has somebody come across that elsewhere and solved it, or should we consider creating a new property? Jneubert (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Because folk saint (Q5464477) has been made a subclass of human (Q5). If there are instances that aren't human, then that's incorrect. If folk saint's are supposed to be human, wouldn't it be an occupation or something, not a subclass? Ghouston (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #318

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

There will be an IRC Office Hour for Structured Data on Commons on Tuesday, 26 June from 18:00-19:00 UTC. More information, including time and date conversion, is available on Meta. There is no set topic, you are welcome to bring any discussion that you would like to the office hour.

mix n match "follow level"

I am trying to build a mix n match catalog using "follow level", which I assume a catalog like this uses. This is for web sites that do not have any kind of auto-incrementing URL portion, which is many of them.

I am at a loss as to what the two fields mean under "follow level" and I'm looking for assistance - a screen shot of a "follow level" setup, for example. There doesn't seem to be a place to begin a scrape by entering one literal URL; every field is asking for a regex pattern, the result of a capture, etc. Thanks, Outriggr (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Members of expeditions

How should we reflect that someone was a member/participant of a specific expedition? There seem to be three possible approaches, all of which make some sense -

So it looks like broadly speaking P1344 is what's been used so far, but there's not so many that we couldn't switch them all if need be. Do we have any thoughts on what the most sensible approach would be? I am leaning towards standardising on P1344 (or P450 for spaceflight) but happy to be challenged. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

P1344 sounds good. It seems more specialized than P793. As P463 is for organizations/clubs, I don't think it would be the focus of items used as values. Not sure if counts matter, but you seem to count participants not expeditions. If you add sea voyages, Titanic would probably tip the counts towards P793. --- Jura 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth (i) doing an OpenRefine run to try to match more of the entities in this AAT facet to Wikidata; (ii) adding broader concept (P4900) qualifiers to locally reference the AAT hierarchy here; (iii) run queries to see what sort of classes these items are currently instances or subclasses of, that are not currently in the subclass tree of physical property (Q4373292).

@Jheald: Many hands make light work? I am mostly interested in fixing our equivalent to AAT's Design Elements sub-hierarchy, but I need to put it somewhere. Is the Open Refine run something you’d have time to take on? It’s beyond my skill set. I’d be interested in more opinions on the subclass/superclass question. (FYI, we are definitely more granular than AAT regarding heraldic motifs and need to have a more detailed class structure there.) - PKM (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Give me a day or two. I'm quite stuck into some work trying to improve texts and authors from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (Q172266) (WikiProject BHL), there's a couple of things there that I'd like to run first. But then let me see if I can remember how to do things from a few months ago, to see if there's much that I can do quickly for this sector of the AAT.

BTW, the new upload interface from OpenRefine is very nice. Mapping a hierarchical catalogue might be a step in at the deep end, but if you have a few names or places or concrete objects to match, I think you might find a play with it quite interesting. Jheald (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a musical notation datatype for properties

Back in August I had inquired about the possibility of a musical notation datatype for use with new properties related to musical compositions (analogous to the mathematical expression datatype for defining formula (P2534)). There is greater interest from those involved in WikiProject India in improving items related to Indian musical modes and Indian musical meters, in the former case requiring properties for separate ascending and descending scales and distinguishing motifs, as well as dominantnotes—please bear in mind the links I have made—and I am sure those who work with Western musical compositions may find such a datatype useful for their own purposes (chord progressions, leitmotifs, opening and closing phrases by analogy with first line (P1922) and last line (P3132), perhaps). The use of such a datatype would work well with the Score extension, most likely with LilyPond notation enabled (ABC notation might work if line breaks were allowed in Wikidata property values), as it is necessary to generate appropriate staves and may be useful to sidestep the use of audio (P51) in generating Vorbis files. Since last proposing the datatype I am becoming increasingly convinced that neither Parsons code (P1236) nor a custom format, as suggested in the previous discussion, will ultimately be portable enough for other uses and would make the generation of staves impossible (with the existing property) or needlessly difficult (with a custom format). As a result, I wish to float the idea once more of creating a musical notation datatype before creating a Phabricator task for it. Mahir256 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Note the datatype for defining formula (P2534) is a subtype of the "string" datatype, which is limited to 400 characters (which has proved a problem for some uses). What do you anticipate would be the rough size of these musical notations? It might be something that would be better handled by a new Commons file format? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: If we need a larger piece (or multiple smaller pieces—akin to relegating numerous uses of population (P1082) to tabular data) of musical notation from a composition, and if it isn't in anyone's interest to host the entire transcribed composition on Commons in some way, the piece(s) could be relegated to some new data format on Commons or elsewhere. For the moment, though, the properties I envision using this datatype would most likely be smaller samples—maybe a few measures at most—specifically to stay under the limit for the string datatype and to help avoid the possibility of too much unstructured data entering Wikidata (a complaint I have seen regarding some proposed string properties). Mahir256 (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: We already have MuseScore ID (P4097), although there are only several accounts run by the site which actually publish official scores (all scores are associated permanently with their uploader, so we can't really use most of them) so its use would be very limited unless Wikidata somehow acquired an "official" account with which to upload files in some manner. Jc86035 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I am aware of that property, but it is primarily intended for the entire score of a particular composition. This datatype would be intended for a few measures' worth of music, as I noted to Arthur above and as I hope was implied by the sorts of applications I listed in my original post. Mahir256 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith, Jc86035: Some examples of the sorts of properties that would benefit from this explicit datatype:

(I will have to determine more completely how best to transcribe such meters.)
There are some melodic modes for which the scales and motif are much longer, but I believe none would exceed the length imposed for the string datatype. Mahir256 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Intuitively, it seems to me that storing the data at commons would be preferable. Having a property that can only store the notation of short songs but not of long songs would likely be annoying to people who use it. Are there arguments against putting the data on commons? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Apologies if I'm drawing too many unneeded parallels to the present status of LaTeX equations, but I think the situations here are very similar. We have migrated quite a bit away from storing images of equations on Commons to simply rendering them on wikis where they are needed (whether on Wikipedia, on Wikisource, and now here), even as we don't store full-fledged mathematical derivations in statements here due to issues with the maximum length of the string datatype. Similarly we have the ability to migrate from storing images of music snippets on Commons to simply rendering them where they are needed (whether on Wikisource, on Wikipedia, and potentially here), and I am sure it will not be feasible to store full scores of pieces as statements here for the same technical reason. As such the use cases I have suggested above are intended to exclude the possibility of storing entire scores, just as entire derivations are excluded from being stored here. Mahir256 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The solution I suggest isn't to have imges of musical snippets on Commons but files on musical sheet files on commons. That might be .MSCZ files or something similar. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl, Mahir256: This seems like an interesting and currently viable solution. Commons is somehow still unable to render or play MIDI files, so rendering is not much of a blocker; but in any case MuseScore does seem to have have a command line option to export files to PDF, SVG, PNG and several other formats. I believe the only existing software which can fully play back MSCZ files are MuseScore itself, the paid MuseScore mobile apps, and the MuseScore website.

Incidentally, making an open-source player for MuseScore files independent of the website would probably significantly devalue both the MuseScore apps and MuseScore Pro, although it would be bound to happen at some point. Jc86035 (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl, Jc86035: I have noticed that the introduction of new extensions to Wikimedia sites becomes problematic as there are generally numerous security issues to be resolved and often there needs to be someone to maintain said extensions for use specifically with Wikimedia sites. While I do agree that the MSCZ format may be useful for storing entire scores à la IMSLP, with regard to musical snippets—my entire intended scope for a musical notation datatype in the spirit of LaTeX mathematical expressions as I have remarked above—I am still not sure based on your comments what is wrong with or what are some disadvantages when using the Score extension here, given that it is already in wider use on Wikimedia sites and can produce MIDI and Vorbis files for output. Mahir256 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: Everything I could think of is at m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Miscellaneous/Improve the Score extension, although not all of it is applicable and the proposal placed a tied #97 out of 214. There are many reasons to use MuseScore instead of LilyPond, and vice versa. I think it's ultimately up to the developers to decide whether to support one, both or neither – I assume adding an Extension:MuseScore based solely on the existing command line program would be at least less problematic than librsvg, and playback could also be done through exporting to OGG. Are there any Phabricator tasks open for adding either LilyPond or MuseScore yet? Jc86035 (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I was going to hold off on filing a Phabricator ticket until there was a larger base of support for this datatype, but thank you for filing it anyways. Maybe the developers can now more readily respond to the proposal. Mahir256 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-opening volume discussion

I'm reopening volume discussion - I've copied it from the archive so as not to lose anything Mvolz (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, is the distinction that Q1238720 indicates a single physically-bound object, whereas Q19816504 represents a logical concept, of a number of issues of a periodical taken together? Yet this also has its limitations, because there are many multi works that may be split into physically-bound object designated eg "Volume 3 part 2". Yet I think we would still use volume (Q1238720) for these.

Alternatively, as suggested by the German label "Jahrgang" rather than "Band", is Q19816504 specifically (and only) to be used to represent an annual run of a periodical -- often not a volume, because a journal may accumulate two or more volumes in a year.

This last interpretation makes the most sense to me, in which case the English label should probably be changed.

Looking at the statements on the items, Q1238720 includes the statement has part (P527)issue (Q28869365) - another apparent indication that it is intended to be used for periodicals; and both claim to be equivalent class (P1709)http://schema.org/PublicationVolume - probably it is Q1238720 that should have this link, since Schema.org says of its concept only that it "may represent a time span, such as a year", not that it must do so. (Though it would useful to confirm with a native German speaker how strictly "Jahrgang" is limited to exactly a year-long run.)

Most importantly is how they have been used. But here in particular there seems to be no great consistency, whether tinyurl.com/y7luwqd2 one limits to items that have a chain of statements making them part of a subclass of periodical literature (Q1002697) (only 6 items), or tinyurl.com/ybeux8t7 not.

At the very least clarification, and clean-up, are needed. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Having slept on it overnight, I have now made the following changes (diff1, diff2) which I hope will clarify the situation and make the relationship between two items more transparent:

I highly object to this. There is no reason to pollute the bibliographic data with more options :). Mvolz (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope that seems sane, and now correctly represents the two items. @Pigsonthewing: Does this seem satisfactory to you? Jheald (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Mostly, thank you, though I'm far from convinced that a journal volume is a subclass of a book volume. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I still think they should be merged- I don't think the changes made here make sense. The annual volume item isn't being used anywhere and to use it would require to check that the volumes are annual, which isn't always the case, even with periodicals. This is why journal issues are pre-labelled with a volume number and ALSO the year. When the journal issue gets sent to the library, the library waits until they have collected all of the issues in the volume. Then the library sends the issues to a book binder to bound into a single book, the volume. So the volume number of a periodical DOES refer to a physical book. It's just until the volume is complete, they physically are apart until that time. Whereas with encyclopedias or monographs, the book is created at the same time the volume number is assigned. I really do not see the utility of having separate items. Yes, there is some non-physical aspect to periodical volumes - there are virtual papers now that get assigned a volume despite never being printed - but the current configuration also doesn't make sense because it artificially constrains the other item to a year which isn't really the case either for periodicals. It's too confusing and there's absolutely no bibliographic reason to make the distinction. If you DO want to make any distinction you could plausibly call the volume a physical book (subclass of book) and volume a concept (subclass of identifier) but the current config seems unnecessary. The function of volume as identifier is to point to the single book you would find it in a library - if you are finding it in a published issue instead or online, then it's simply unused information. Mvolz (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you have a good argument. However, it should be noted that journal volumes aren't necessarily one physical bound book - for very large journals a single volume may be much too large to bind into a single physical book, and for small ones several volumes might be combined into a single book (as it's up to the library how to handle the binding). And of course there's the virtual issue now. On the other hand, the word "book" is also often used to mean parts of a volume - for example en:The Baroque Cycle is 3 "volumes" containing 8 "books", which I suppose could have been bound as 8 separate physical "books" (perhaps this was done in the past for similar long works?). If we are to retain two items here, I'd suggest "volume of a periodical" rather than "annual volume" is a better title for the second. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have some odd issues of journals lying around; the nearest one to hand is part of "volume 27", but I have never owned the rest of that volume, nor has the issue ever been bound with other issues from that volume. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mvolz, ArthurPSmith, Pigsonthewing: To say that annual collection (Q19816504) "isn't being used anywhere" isn't quite true. As the Reasonator page shows it is currently being used on 77 items. Looking at some of these -- eg the cover pages from Die Gartenlaube thumbnailed at the bottom of the Reasonator page, many of these items specifically indicate themselves as being the Jahrgang for a particular year. This is where Q19816504 came from, to represent the specific concept with this name in German, representing a book containing a year's proceedings, or a year's transactions, or a year's publications of a learned society. I don't think in English we have the concept with the same degree of distinctiveness or specificity. The Transactions and journal of the proceedings of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society (Q51391127) may be collected and published on an annual basis, but in English I think we're quite happy to describe them as "volumes", with a sequential numerical volume number. But (as I understand it) in Germany a similar collection might well have been called specifically a Jahrgang, denoted by a particular year, rather than a number.

That's why, though I did think about merging the two, I held off from it. Rather than steaming ahead and taking a decision on this on English project chat, after a discussion held entirely in English, I think it would be useful to hear from some more German speakers, as to whether they feel there is still a real and substantial distinction here in German, to the extent that it makes sense to have a "Jahrgang" subclass for items where that is what they call themselves. Jheald (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith, Jheald: You're right, these are two separate things. It seems to be an additional identifier used only in German publications. See for instance https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5Ey3DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=jahrgang+oder+band has a list of volumes (band) and these also have a jahrgang number. In this case Jahrgang is definitely not a subclass of volume though because the books are identified with the band number, and multiple bands can have a single Jahrgang, or in one case a single volume had three Jahrgang numbers because it covered three years. So I actually think "annual volume" is correct. There the Jahrgang is a sequential number but there's some evidence the Jahrgang can actually be the year itself too. Given that some publications can have both a band (Bd.) and a jahrgang (Jr.), we need both. Mvolz (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith, Jheald, Pigsonthewing:
Update: So I talked to a native German speaker today. When I asked what "jahrgang" meant he defined it as "everyone who had been born in a particular year, like a cohort." He's an academic but hadn't heard of the bibliographic context. To me that says that the more general meaning of the word is a collection items created in a single year (including people) and that it definitely has a different meaning than volume which refers to a physical book, so not a subclass of volume, certainly. Mvolz (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mvolz: Okay. So when the two coincide, do we recommend that people make the item instance of (P31) both 'volume' and Q19816504? And perhaps change the English-language label for the latter from 'annual volume' to 'Jahrgang' as a German-language technical term? Jheald (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

National academies

Once again I'm having to ask for someone with more experience than me to follow up on something I noticed. We have

but at least a few of the sitelinked pages are not disambiguations pages at all: the linked en-wiki and Commons pages are not, the de-wiki one is; at that point I decided I may not yet be the one to fix this. I suspect we need to split apart a Wikimedia disambiguation page and a substantive item page. - Jmabel (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)